l  6  t*-e>-<<^- 


N\V\  w 

.'  1  \  \  o  t\ 


[Reprinted  from  the  Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association  of 
America ,  xxi,  3] 


THE  HISTORY  OF  AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH 
BEFORE  THE  DENTAL,  LABIAL,  AND 
PALATAL  NASALS. 


In  the  following  pages  the  history  of  the  pronunciation  in 
French  of  accented  ai  and  ei  before  n,  m  and  n  is  to  be 
investigated  in  detail.  The  subject  naturally  falls  into  two 
divisions.  On  the  one  hand  we  have  ai  and  ei  before  n  or 
m ,  and  on  the  other  we  have  the  words  in  which  these 
diphthongs  are  followed  by  n.  Both  divisions  are  closely 
allied  and  the  development  of  the  one  is  often  identical  with 
that  of  the  other.  Yet  for  the  better  control  of  the  material 
it  will  be  advisable  to  separate  the  history  of  ain  or  aim  and 
ein  or  eim  from  that  of  aign  and  eign. 

The  various  grammars  differ  in  the  outline  of  the  history 
of  the  sounds  in  question.  Concentrating  our  attention  first 
upon  ai  and  ei  followed  by  the  dental  nasal,  and  granting 
that  the  most  direct  road  from  the  oldest  stage  ain  to 
modern  §  is  through  ein,  what  would  seem  to  be  the  simplest 
explanation  may  be  found  in  Nyrop’s  Grammaire  historique 
de  la  langue  frangaise ,  I,  §§  217  and  222.  According  to 
him,  ain  in  the  11th  century  was  pronounced  din ,  and  ein 
was  ein.  ju  the  12th  century  the  two  sounds  coincide  with 
the  value  cf  gwi,  and  remain  so  until  about  the  16th  century, 
when  the  modem  pronunciation  f  develops.  When  both 
syllables  had  the  same  value,  one  could  be  written  for  the 
other,  and  hence  the  well  known  Old  French  confusion  in 
the  orthography.  This  vie\W>f  the  question  is  shared  by 
Meyer-Lubke,  Grammatik  derl^XLnischen  Spraehen,  I,  §  89. 

There  is,  however,  evidencS^B^the  history  of  these 
syllables  was  not  so  simple.  manuscripts 

present  an  orthography  quite  the  value 

17 


638 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


of  ein  for  graphic  ain ,  and  rimes  can  be  cited  which  show 
that  din  remained  stationary  while  ein  became  din.  In 
consequence  Behrens  in  the  Schwan-Behrens  Altfranzosische 
Grammatik,  §§  257  and  258,  admits  the  history  outlined  by 
Nyrop  only  for  the  literary  language,  while  dialectically  and 
in  a  region  which  he  describes  as  lacking  accurate  delinea¬ 
tion  he  accepts  din  as  the  common  value  of  both  ain  and  ein. 

This  pronunciation  of  din ,  which  Behrens  believes  was  dia¬ 
lectic,  is  looked  upon  by  Suchier,  Altfranzosische  Grammatik , 
§  45,  as  the  regular  sound  of  these  syllables  in  the  literary 
language ;  ‘  ei  ist  zu  ai  geworden  etwa  in  der  Mitte  des  xii 
Jahrhunderts.  Seit  dem  werden  ein  und  am  promiscue 
geschrieben,  und  es  ist  ganz  gleichgiltig,  ob  ein  Schreiber 
jenes  oder  dieses  bevorzugt.’ 

It  is  evident  that  the  question  is  sufficiently  encumbered 
to  merit  a  detailed  investigation.  The  arguments  available 
must  be  sought  in  rimes  and  to  a  less  degree  in  the  orthog¬ 
raphy.  For  this  purpose  a  long  and  representative  list  of 
texts 1  has  been  studied,  extending  in  chronological  order 


1 1  add  here  a  rough  chronological  list  of  the  texts  that  have  been  most 
directly  utilized  for  the  present  study  and  I  include  one  or  two  titles  that 
are  not  cited  in  the  discussion,  so  that  others  interested  in  the  same  prob¬ 
lem  may  be  spared  the  trouble  of  searching  through  the  same  texts  again. 
If  the  arguments  presented  here  should  not  be  found  convincing,  new  evi¬ 
dence  will  have  to  be  sought  in  different  sources. 

Karls  des  Grossen  Reise  nach  Jerusalem  und  Constantinopel,  nrsg.  von  Kosch- 
witz,  Heilbronn,  1883  (Altfrz.  Bibl.,  n)  ( Voy .  Chari.). 

Li  Cumpoz  Philipe  de  Thaun ,  hrsg.  von  E.  Mall,  Strassburg,  1873. 

Le  Bestiaire  de  Philippe  de  Thatin,  Texte  critique  par  E.  Walberg,  Lund, 
1900. 

Les  Voyages  Merveilleux  de  Saint  Brandan,  Legende  ....  publi^e  par  Fr. 
Michel,  Paris,  1878,  and  by  Sufi^ier,  Rom.  Stud.,  i,  p.o.  567-587. 
( Brandan. ) 

Le  Couronnement  de  Louis,  puJ^^^K  E.  Langlois,  Paris,  1888.  ( Soc .  d. 

Anc.  Textes. ) 

Le  Roman  de  ThebesJid Constans,  Paris,  1890.  ( Soc.  d.  Anc. 

Textes.) 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


639 


from  the  beginning  to  the  16th  century  and  arranged  in 
groups  according  to  the  dialects.  I  now  present  this 

Le  Roman  de  Tristan  par  Beroul,  public  par  E.  Muret,  Paris,  1903.  (Soc. 
d.  Anc.  Textes.) 

Eneas ,  public  par  J.  S.  de  Grave,  Halle,  1891.  ( Bibl .  Norm.,  iv. ) 

Maistre  Wace’s  Roman  de  Ron  et  des  Dues  de  Normandie,  hrsg.  von  H. 

Andresen,  Heilbronn,  1877-1879.  (R.  Ron.) 

Benoit  de  Sainte-More  et  le  Reman  de  Troie  par  A.  Jolv,  Paris,  1871.  ( R . 

Troie. ) 

Le  Roman  de  Troie  par  Benoit  de  Sainte-Maure,  public  par  L.  Constans,  vol. 

I,  Paris,  1904.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes.) 

Chronique  des  Dues  de  Normandie  par  Benoit,  publi^e  par  Fr.  Michel,  Paris, 
1836-1844.  (Coll.  d.  Doc.  Ined.  s.  V Hist.  d.  France.) 

Adgar’s  Marienlegenden,  hrsg.  von  C.  Neuhaus,  Heilbronn,  1886.  (Altfrz. 
Bibl.,  ix.) 

Aiol  et  Mirabel  und  Elie  de  Saint  Gille  ;  Zwei  altfranzosische  Heldenge- 
dichte,  hrsg,  von  W.  Forster,  Heilbronn,  1876-1882. 

Amis  et  Amiles  und  Jourdains  de  Blaivies  ;  Zwei  altfranzosische  Heldenge- 
dichte,  hrsg.  von  C.  Hofmann,  Erlangen,  1852. 

Aucassin  und  Nicolete,  hrsg.  von  H.  Suchier,  Paderborn,  1899. 

De  Saint  Laurent,  poeme  anglonormand  du  xne  siecle,  publie  par  W. 
Soderhjelm,  Paris,  1888. 

Sainte  Catherine — Dve  Verse  starofrancouzsk6  Legendy  o  Sv.  Katerine 
vydal  U.  Jarnlk,  Prague,  1894. 

La  Vie  de  Saint  Grilles  par  Guillaume  de  Berneville,  publi^e  par  G.  Paris  et 
A.  Bos,  Paris,  1881.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes.) 

Ille  et  Galeron  von  Walter  von  Arras ,  hrsg.  von  W.  Forster,  Halle,  1891. 
(Rom.  Bibl.,  vii.  ) 

Christian  von  Troyes,  Siimtliche  Werke,  hrsg.  von  W.  Forster,  Halle,  1884- 
1899. 

Le  Roman  de  Tristan  par  Thomas,  public  par  J.  B4dier,  Paris,  1901.  (Soc. 
d.  Anc.  Textes.) 

Les  Chansons  de  Gace  Brule,  publics  par  G.  Huet,  Paris,  1902.  (Soc.  d. 
Anc.  Textes.) 

Die  Lais  der  Marie  de  France,  hrsg.  von  K.  Warnke,  Halle,  1900.  (Bibl. 
Norm.,  m. ) 

Die  Fabeln  der  Marie  de  France,  hrsg.  von  K.  Warnke,  Halle,  1898.  (Bibl. 
Norm.,  vi.) 

Der  Roman  du  Mont  Saint- Michel  von  Guillaume  de  S.  Paier,  hrsg.  von  P. 

Kedlich,  Marburg,  1894.  (Ausg.  u.  Abh.,  xcn.) 

Estienne  von  Fougiere's  Livre  des  Manures,  hrsg.  von  J.  Kremer,  Marburg, 
1887.  (Ausg.  u.  Abh.,  xxxix.) 


640 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


material,  which,  though  not  exhaustive,  is  yet  sufficiently 
complete  to  warrant  the  drawing  of  definite  conclusions ; 
and  I  hope  that  it  may  serve  to  throw  light  upon  one  of  the 

La  Vie  de  Saint  Thomas  le  Martyr  par  Gamier  de  PontrSainte-Maxence,  pub¬ 
liee  par  C.  Hippeau,  Paris,  1889. 

The  Metrical  Chronicle  of  Jordan  Fantosme,  edited  by  R.  Howlett,  London, 
1886. 

Hue  de  Rotelande’  s  Ipomedon,  brsg.  von  E.  Kolbing  und  E.  Koschwitz, 
Breslau,  1889. 

Estoire  de  la  Guerre  Sainte  par  Ambroise,  publiee  par  G.  Paris,  Paris,  1897. 

(  Coll.  d.  Doc.  Ined.  s.  V  Hist.  d.  France. ) 

L’Escoufle,  publie  par  H.  Michelant  et  P.  Meyer,  Paris,  1894.  ( Soc .  d. 

Anc.  Textes.) 

Robert  le  Diable,  publie  par  E.  Loseth,  Paris,  1903.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes.) 
Le  Roman  de  la  Rose  ou  de  Guillaume  de  Dole ,  public  par  G.  Servois,  Paris, 
1893.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes.) 

Char  dry’s  Josaphaz,  Set  Dormanz  und  Petit  Piet,  krsg.  von  J.  Koch,  Heil- 
bronn,  1879.  (Altfrz.  Bibl.,  i. ) 

The  Song  of  Dermot  and  the  Earl,  published  by  G.  H.  Orpen,  Oxford,  1892.  . 
Li  Romans  de  Carite  et  de  Miserere  du  Renclus  de  Moiliens,  publie  par  A.-G. 

van  Hamel,  Paris,  1885.  ( Bibl.  d.  V  Ec.  d.  Hautes  Etudes. ) 

Maistre  Elie’s  Ueberarbeitung  der  dltesten  franzbsischen  Uebertragung  von 
Ovid’s  Ars  Amatoria ,  hrsg.  von  Kuhne  und  Stengel,  Marburg,  1886. 
(Ausg.  u.  Abh.,  xlvii.) 

La  Clef  d’ Amors,  hrsg.  von  A.  Doutrepont,  Halle,  1890.  (Bibl.  Norm.,  v. ) 
Li  Chevaliers  as  deus  Espees,  hrsg.  von  W.  Forster,  Halle,  1877. 

Li  Romans  de  Durmart  le  Galois,  hrsg.  von  E.  Stengel  fur  den  litterarischen 
Verein  in  Stuttgart,  1873. 

Le  Roman  de  Renart,  hrsg.  von  E.  Martin,  Strassburg,  1881-1887. 

Guillaume  de  Palerne,  public  par  H.  Michelant,  Paris,  1876.  (Soc.  d.  Anc. 
Textes.) 

Le  Bestiaire  .  ...  des  Guillaume  le  Clerc,  hrsg.  von  R.  Reinsch,  Leipzig, 
1892.  (Altfrz.  Bibl,  xiv. ) 

Le  Besant  de  Dieu  von  Guillaume  le  Clerc  de  Normandie,  hrsg.  von  E. 
Martin,  Halle,  1869. 

Raoul  de  Houdenc,  Le  Songe  d’  Enfer,  Le  Songe  de  Paradis ,  Li  Romans  des 
Eles,  publies  par  A.  Scheler,  Trouveres  Beiges,  Louvain,  1879,  vol.  ii. 

La  Vie  de  Saint  Gregoire  par  Frere  Angier ,  publiee  par  P.  Meyer,  Romania, 
xii,  pp.  145-208. 

Trois  Versions  rimees  de  V  Evangile  de  Nicodeme ,  publiees  par  G.  Paris  et  A. 
Bos,  Paris,  1885.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes.) 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


641 


very  vexing  problems  of  French  Historical  Grammar.  We 
shall  consider  in  the  first  place  the  history  of  ai  and  ei 
before  n  or  m. 

U  Hisloire  d#  Guillaume  le  Marechal,  publide  par  P.  Meyer,  3  vols,,  Paris, 
1891-1901.  ( Soc .  d.  VHist.  de  France),  vol.  I. 

La  Bible  Guiot  de  Provins  in  Fabliaux  et  Contes  des  Pontes  Frangais,  publics 
par  Barbazon  et  Meon,  Paris,  1808,  vol.  n,  pp.  307-393. 

Le  Pit  des  Hues  de  Paris ,  ibid. ,  pp.  238-275. 

Les  Cneries  de  Paris,  ibid. ,  pp.  276-286. 

Les  Moustiers  de  Paris,  ibid.,  pp.  287-292. 

Le  Roman  de  Galerent,  publie  par  A.  Boucherie,  Paris,  1888.  (Soc.  pour 
V  etude  des  lang.  rom. ) 

TFistasse  le  Moine,  hrsg.  von  W.  Forster  und  J.  Trost,  Halle,  1891.  (Rom. 
Bibl.,  iv.) 

Lyoner  Yzopet,  hrsg.  von  W.  Forster,  Heilbronn,  1882.  (Altfrz.  Bibl.,  v.) 

Le  Roman  de  la  Rose,  public  par  Fr.  Michel,  Paris,  1872. 

Floris  et  Liriope  des  Robert  de  Blois,  hrsg.  von  W.  von  Zingerle,  Leipzig, 
1891.  (Altfrz.  Bibl.,  xii.  ) 

Jean  Bodel,  Le  Jeu  de  Saint  Nicolas. 

Adam  de  la  Halle,  Le  Jeu  de  la  Feuillie,  both  published  by  Monmerqud  et 
Michel,  Thedtre  Frangais  a u  moyen  dge,  Paris,  1885. 

Adam  de  la  Halle,  Le  Jeu  de  Robin  et  Marion  in  Bartsch-Horning,  La 
Langue  et  la  Litterature  Frangaise,  Paris,  1887,  col.  523-548. 

Trouveres  Beiges,  publics  par  A.  Scheler,  Louvain,  1866-1879. 

Rutebeuf,  Euvres  Completes,  publics  par  A.  Jubinal,  Paris,  1874-1875. 
(Bibl.  Elzevirienne. ) 

Richars  li  Biaus,  hrsg.  von  W.  Forster,  Wien,  1874. 

Les  (Euvres  poetiques  de  Philippe  de  Remi,  sire  de  Beaumanoir,  publiees  par 
H.  Suchier,  Paris,  1884-1885.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes.)  La  Manekine, 
vol.  i. 

Li  Dis  dou  Vrai  Aniel,  hrsg.  von  A.  Tobler,  Leipzig,  1884. 

Octavian,  hrsg.  von  K.  Vollmoller,  Heilbronn,  1883.  (Altfrz.  Bibl.,  ill.) 

( Euwes  Completes  d' Eustache  Deschamps,  publiees  par  Queuxde  Saint-Hilaire 
et  G.  Raynaud,  Paris,  1878-1903.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes ),  vol.  i  and  ii. 

Miracles  de  Nostre  Dame  par  personnages,  publics  par  G.  Paris  et  U.  Robert, 
Paris,  1876-1883.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes),  vols.  I,  ii  and  m. 

(Euvres  poetiques  de  Christine  de  Pisan,  publiees  par  M.  Roy,  Paris,  1886- 
1896.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes.) 

Meliador  par  Froissart,  public  par  A.  Longnon,  Paris,  1895-1899.  (Soc.  d. 
Anc.  Textes.) 

Poesies  Completes  de  Charles  J  Orleans,  publiees  par  Ch.  d’H^ricault,  Paris, 
1896. 


642 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


I. 

AIN—EIN. 

The  two  syllables  ain  and  ein  are  not  found  forming 
assonance  or  riming  together  in  the  Alexis ,  the  Roland ,  the 
Reimpredigt,  the  French  translation  of  Marbod’s  Lapidary , 
the  Comput  and  Bestiaire  of  Philippe  de  Thaon.  They  are 
kept  distinct  even  as  late  as  Guillaume  de  Berneville’s  Vie  de 
Saint  Grilles.1  In  these  texts  the  pronunciation  was  din  and 
ein  respectively;  cp.  mains,  Rol.  3965,  in  assonance  with 
-an,  ceinte,  ibid.  984,  in  ei  assonance,  and  peine  1787,  aleine 
1789,  feindre  1792  in  assonance  with  sanglente,  temples, 
entendent,  etc. ;  cp.  also  Engelmann,  TJeber  die  Entstehung  der 
Nasalvokale,  Halle,  1882,  pp.  20  ff. 

The  earliest2  definite  evidence  of  a  confusion  of  the  two 
syllables  in  rime  occurs  in  the  Brandan .3  Here  ain  and  ein 

CEuvres  Poetiques  de  Guillaume  Alexis,  prieur  de  Bucy,  publiees  par  A. 

Piaget  et  E.  Picot,  Paris,  1896-1899.  ( Soc .  d.  Anc.  Textes. ) 

1!  Arnant  rendu  Cordelier,  poeme  attribue  a  Martial  d?  Auvergne,  public  par 
A.  de  Montaiglon,  Paris,  1881.  (Soc.  d.  Anc .  Textes. ) 

Le  Mister e  du  Viel  Testament,  publie  par  le  baron  James  de  Rothschild, 
Paris,  1878-1891.  (Soc.  d.  Anc.  Textes.)  Vol.  i. 

Die  WerJce  Maistre  Frangois  Villons,  hrsg.  von  W.  von  Wurzbach,  Roman- 
ische  Forscliungen,  xvi,  pp.  405-584. 

(Euvres  Completes  de  Clement  Marot,  publiees  par  B.  Saint-Marc,  Paris, 
Gamier,  without  date. 

1Cp.  G.  Paris,  ed.  p.  xxvii. 

2  In  his  Altfrz.  Gram.,  p.  72,  Suchier  cites  as  earliest  instance  of  the 
mingling  of  ain  and  ein ,  desteint :  refraint ,  Bestiaire  2865.  However,  this 
rime  would  be  so  unique  for  Philippe  de  Thaon,  that  Walberg  in  his  edition 
of  the  text,  pp.  xlviii  and  146,  rejects  the  reading  and  adopts  restreinte: 
desteinte  instead. 

3  To  this  categorical  statement  the  following  note  must  be  added.  The 
Voyage  de  Charlemagne  in  its  assonances  shows  the  same  pronunciation  of 
the  syllables  in  question  as  the  Roland,  cp.  Koschwitz,  Rom.  Stud.,  n,  pp. 
38  ff.  At  the  same  time  this  poem  contains  one  laisse,  11.  783-802,  which 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


643 


rime  freely;  cp.  quarenteine  :  semaine  133,  cha [e] ines  : 
semaines  866,  funtaines  :  pleines  998,  1586,  meindres  : 
greindres  1004,  and  from  thi^  poem  on,  mixture  of  the 
two  is  constant  in  Old  French  texts.  Suchier  suggests, 
Altfrz.  Gram.,  p.  72,  that  the  process  was  somewhat  slower 
on  the  continent  than  it  was  in  England.  Wace  in  the 
Roman  de  Ron  has  48  pure  ain  and  14  pure  ein  rimes,  and 
only  one  instance  of  fusion,  Saint  Oain :  secrestain  (andcenum  : 
-anum),  1.  347.  However  Pohl,  Rom.  Forsch.,  ii,  pp.  581-2, 
has  shown  that  while  this  observation  is  undoubtedly  exact, 
it  is  very  probably  true  that  the  inference  that  Wace  con¬ 
sciously  separates  the  two  syllables  is  not  justified,  for  in 
the  same  author’s  Brut  mixture  of  the  two  is  much  more 
frequent,  and,  at  any  rate,  in  other  continental  texts  of  the 
same  period,  such  as  Eneas,  the  poems  of  Marie  de  France, 
and  Benoit  de  Sainte-More,  the  Livre  des  Manures,  fusion 
of  the  two  syllables  is  quite  the  rule.  In  view  of  these 
facts  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  in  the  prose  texts  of  this 

appears  to  contradict  the  accuracy  of  this  assertion.  Here  the  following 
sequence  of  assonances  is  found  :  Charlemaignes :  compaignes  :  deplaindre : 
France :  regne :  grande :  enfraindre  :  remaignet :  Charlemaigne :  plaines :  pleines : 
descendre  :  ente  :  aimet :  regne  :  France  :  Charlemaignes  :  plaigne.  It  will  be 
impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  for  this  poem  en  and  an  form  a 
correct  assonance  (cp.  Rom.  Stud.,  ii,  p.  49),  though  the  mixture  of  the 
two  is  not  very  frequent.  That  regne  should  be  found  in  the  same  laisse 
need  not  surprise.  It  had  become  rane  in  pronunciation,  and  there  are 
numerous  other  texts  giving  evidence  of  a  similar  pronunciation  of  the 
word.  However,  difficulty  is  created  by  the  appearance  of  pleines,  1.  793, 
in  the  series.  Since  the  separation  of  ain  and  ein  seems  so  clearly  demanded 
by  the  assonances  of  this  text,  Koscliwitz,  l.  c.,  p.  40,  suggests  that  the 
lines  783-802  should  be  divided  into  three  laisses  as  follows  :  (1)  783-792, 
di:a,  (2)  793-795,  ei :  e,  (3)  796-802,  ai:a.  Considering  the  probable 
age  of  the  poem  and  its  dialect,  this  explanation  is  presumably  correct,  but 
whatever  the  final  decision  may  be,  the  consideration  of  the  present  problem 
need  not  concern  itself  with  these  lines.  Everything  depends  upon  the 
age  of  the  poem,  and  if  it  should  be  younger  than  the  Roland,  these 
assonances  would  only  corroborate  what  we  can  observe  elsewhere. 


644 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


period  ain  and  ein  are  constantly  confused  in  orthography ; 
cp.  for  the  MonUbourg  Psalter ,  Harseim,  Pom.  Stud.,  iv, 
pp.  277  and  283  ;  for  the  Cambridge  Psalter,  Schumann, 
Vokalismus  und  Konsonantismus  des  Cambridger  Psalters, 
Franz.  Stud.,  iv,  fasc.  4,  pp.  17  and  29,  and  for  the  Quatre 
Livres  des  Pois,  Schlosser,  Pie  Lautverhaltnisse  der  Quatre 
Pivres  des  Pois,  Leipzig,  1887,  pp.  13  and  31. 

The  next  point  to  be  discussed  is  the  pronunciation  of 
this  syllable  written  indifferently  ain  or  ein.  To  facilitate 
the  control  of  the  available  material,  we  shall  divide  the 
examples  according  to  the  letter  or  letters  which  may  follow 
after  the  nasal  consonant. 

1).  ain  —  ein. 

The  union  of  these  two  syllables  in  rime  leaves  no 
question  that  their  pronunciation  was  identical,  but  it  gives 
no  clue  as  to  the  nature  of  the  vowel  or  diphthong  that  was 
pronounced.  Inasmuch  as  this  was  either  din  or  ein  we 
may  look  for  imperfect  rimes  with  an  or  en  as  capable  of 
throwing  light  on  the  problem.  A  few  examples  of  ain  :  an 
occur  in  the  texts  which  I  have  examined,  and  we  may  add 
those  of  ains  :  ans  as  having  the  same  value.  Cp.  Brandan : 
pan  (pannum),  Brandan  480,  Brandan :  an,  ibid.  824, 
Brandan  :  vilain,  ibid.  163,  Brandan  :  main,  ibid.  ‘658, 
Brandans  :  mains,  ibid.  203,  pan  (panem)  :  ahan,  Mist. 
Adam  434,  but  pain  :  Evain,  ibid.  786,  Trajan  :  roman, 
Angier,  Gregoire  2539,  but  Traien  :  paien,  ibid.  2715,  der - 
vans  :  Johans,  Angier,  Dialogues,  7 2,  r°b,  cited  by  Miss  Pope, 
Langue  de  Frere  Angier,  Paris,  1903,  p.  12,  esturman  : 
certan,  Eneas  205.  For  the  correct  appreciation  of  these 
rimes  it  should  be  noted  that  of  the  words  in  question, 
vilain,  main,  pan,  roman,  derrans  and  certan ,  involve  the 
Latin  vowel  a,  and  that  Brandan  is  a  proper  name  in  which 
the  tonic  syllable  may  have  retained  its  Latin  value.1  When 


1  Cp.  Suchier,  Zs.  f.  rom.  Phil,  ix,  p.  89,  note. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


645 


we  take  into  account,  furthermore,  the  fact  that  the  texts 
from  which  these  few  rimes  are  taken  cover  a  period  of  a 
hundred  years,  and  that  ains ,  which  certainly  had  the  same 
value  of  vowel  as  ain,  occurs  in  the  same  texts  and  in  others 
of  the  same  period  and  dialect  in  rime  with  ens  and  iens 
(cp.  below,  p.  646),  it  becomes  evident  that  these  examples 
represent  rime  licences.  They  are  either  pure  Latinisms  1  or 
remnants  of  the  earlier  practice  exemplified  by  the  asso¬ 
nances  cited  above  from  the  Roland ,  but  they  have  no 
argumentative  value  for  the  determination  of  the  pronuncia¬ 
tion  of  ain  in  this  dialect  and  during  this  period. 

Rimes  of  ain  or  ein  with  en  on  the  other  hand  are  even 
rarer.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  gn  in  the  final  sylla¬ 
ble  of  the  word  exists  in  Old  French  only  in  a  few  learned 
names  and  in  words  of  the  categories  of  bene  and  paganum. 
Of  the  former,  as  far  as  I  know,  only  a  single  instance 
occurs  in  the  texts  examined,  Jerusalem  :  Alein,  B.  Chron. 
36894.  When  compared  with  Alain:  main,  ibid.  36940, 
main  :f rein  16366  and  Jerusalem  :  huem  31752,  it  becomes 
evident  that  both  ain  and  ein  in  this  text  cannot  have  been 
ain  and  this  is  also  the  conclusion  of  Pohl,  Rom.  Forsch.,  ii, 
p.  554. 

Mixture  with  ien  points  in  the  same  direction.  The 
actual  rimes  that  can  be  cited  here  are  not  very  numerous, 
because  the  inflected  forms  of  the  syllables  in  question  are 
more  frequent  in  rime  than  the  uninflected.  Their  discussion 
may,  therefore,  be  deferred  to  the  succeeding  paragraph. 

2).  ains —  eins ,  ainz  —  einz. 

Several  rimes  show  mixture  with  ens  or  enz ;  cp.  defens : 
mains  (minus),  Mist.  Adam  148,  meins  :  tens,  .Gaimar  1811, 
ateinz  :  defenz,  B.  Chron.  22848,  genz  :  seinz,  ibid.  32235. 
Since  checked  e  before  a  nasal  in  these  texts  was  certainly  g 


1  Cp.  Miss  Pope,  l .  c.,  p.  12* 


646 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


it  will  be  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  ains  and  eins 
tended  in  the  same  direction.  This  inference  is  emphasized 
by  the  existence  in  the  same  and  similar  texts  of  a  certain 
number  of  rimes  just  referred  to,  beginning  with  the  R. 
Troie ,  which  show  fusion  of  ains  and  eins  with  iens.  In  the 
Eneas  we  can  observe  only  mixture  of  iens  and  ens ;  cp. 
Troiiens  :  tens  (tempus)  565,  601,  5811,  6319,  anciens  :tens 
4127,  Sabiens  :  cuens  3949,  euens  :  Volcens  5093,  and  the 
same  is  true  of  Marie  de  France;  cp.  anciens  :  tens,  Milun 
63.  The  JR.  Ron  contains  no  examples  in  point,  but  the 
R.  Troie  and  B.  Chron.  continue  the  tradition  of  the  JEJneas, 
while  they  add  besides  rimes  of  ainfs)  and  ein(s)  with  ien(s). 
Since  the  latter  was  ign(s),  as  shown  through  the  union  with 
ens  —  gns,  there  can  be  little  question  about  the  pronuncia¬ 
tion  of  the  former.  The  following  are  the  examples  : — 
ien(s)  :  en(s) — R.  Troie.1  Troien  :  sen  5813,  6815,  nequeden  : 
Troien  1.8641,  Troiens  :  tens  581,  7179,  20471 ,  :  porpens 
19915,  Atheniens  :  tens  8489,  Sisiliens  :  buens  18581,  Poflago- 
niens  :  suens  20515;  B.  Chron.  suen  :bien,  1-1765  (cp.  suens: 
buens ,  n-3005),  bo  ens  :  cristiens,  II-24307,  tens  :  Egiptiens, 
1-413,  paiens  :  sens,  II— 23081,  tens  :  crestiens,  n-39017. 

ien(s)  :  ein(s ) — R.  Troie.  meins  :  Troiains  5275  ;  B.  Chron. 
Men  :  Saint  Oien,  n-19550  (cp.  Sainz  Oieins  :  mains  (manus), 
n-25840,  main  (mane)  :  Oain,  n-7009,  19354). 

ien(s) :  ain(s) — R.  Troie.  primer  ains :  Troiains  13903, 18745, 
25273,  ger  mains :  Indiains  lAOdl ,  Frisains :  primer  ains  15549  ; 
B.  Chron .  cristiens  :  premerains,  1—925,  :  parr  eins,  ii— 6577, 
7988,  Men  :  Saint  Oien  19550  (cp.  Saint  Oain  :  main,  ii- 
19354). 

Of  the  same  general  nature  are  the  rimes  Swein  :  buen 
B.  Chron.  31046,  Sueins  :  buens  38889  and  seins  (=  suens) 

1  References  to  the  R.  Troie  as  far  as  1.  8292  are  given  according  to  the 
new  edition  of  the  poem  by  Constans,  Soc.  d..  Anc.  Textes,  Paris,  1904. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


647 


:  Aldus  31008  (cp.  Alains  :  seins  (sanus),  R.  Rou  2735), 
interesting  particularly  for  the  orthography,  for  Suein  is 
the  usual  bisyllabic  Soen ,  Suen,1  and  seins  stands  for  suens. 
The  Chron.  ML  S.  Mich,  presents  only  a  single  rime  andeins  : 
pens  (penso)  3752,  interesting  also  for  the  orthography, 
while  the  Livre  d.  Man.  has  no  rime  in  point.  But  the 
Beroul  Tristan  contains  Brengain  :  bien  523,  :  mien  553, 
Lan  [ci]  en  :Ivein  1155,  TJrien  :  Dinoalain  3487,  suen  :  Denoa- 
len  4435.  Here  Brengain  may  stand  for  Brangien  and  can, 
therefore,  not  enter  into  the  argument,  except  in  as  much  as 
it  shows  the  value  ascribed  to  the  combination  ain  by  the 
copyist.  Frans  :  mains  B.  Trist.  3327  is  discussed  by  Muret, 
edition,  p.  xliv.  On  the  basis  of  Gottfried  of  Strassburg’s 
rime  Isot  als  blansche  mains  :  Kdedin  li  f rains ,  which  he 
probably  derived  from  Thomas,  and  Heinrich  of  Freiberg’s 
appellative  li  frenis  of  the  same  knight  he  concludes  ‘  nous 
devons  peut-etre  retablir  au  vers  3327  une  epithete  tradi- 
tionelle,  distincte  de  l’adjectif  franc.’  Finally,  though  the 
text  does  not  belong  strictly  to  the  same  dialect,  and  yet 
pointing  in  the  same  direction  as  far  as  the  pronunciation 
of  the  syllables  in  question  is  concerned,  there  should  be 
cited  from  the  R.  Th&bes  the  rimes  ren  :  germain  6807,  and 
demen  ( demain )  :  ben  8249,  8271,  ben  wen  (vanum)  8487. 
Here  also  ien  rimes  with  uen,  as  in  rens  :  suens  4343.  The 
same  rime  of  ain  :  ien  is  probably  also  involved  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  series  from  the  Vie  de  Saint  Thomas  of  Gamier  de  Pont- 
Sainte-Maxence  where  prochain  rimes  with  main  ’.plain : 
sain  :  soverain  on  p.  53  and  in  the  form  prosceins  with  biens : 
miens  :  riens  :jiens  on  p.  130. 

It  seems  to  me  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  avoid  what 
appears  to  be  thex  evident  inference  demanded  by  these 

1  Cp.  also  Suain: plain  (plenum),  La  Vie  de  Seint  Edmund  le  Rei  3703, 
edited  by  F.  L.  Ravenel,  Bryn  Mawr  College  Monographs,  1906. 

9 


648 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


rimes.  The  fusion  of  ien(s )  with  en(s)  on  the  one  hand  and 
with  ain(s)  and  ein(s)  on  the  other,  together  with  the  rimes 
of  ains  or  eins  with  ens  or  enz  in  texts  where  ens  was  pro¬ 
nounced  gns,  allows  only  of  one  conclusion,  viz.,  that  ain(s ) 
and  ein(s)  in  the  dialect  represented  by  these  texts  tended 
in  the  direction  of  their  modern  value,  and  had  certainly 
arrived  at  least  at  the  stage  ein{s).  That  iens  should  then 
in  the  pen  of  a  copyist  speaking  the  same  dialect  become 
iains  or  ieins  need  cause  no  astonishment.  This  orthog¬ 
raphy  merely  represents  his  effort  to  make  the  rime  accept¬ 
able  to  the  eye.  How  far  geographically  this  orthographic 
habit  extended  I  am  unable  to  say.  Stock,  Rom.  Stud.,  11, 
p.  468,  cites  a  similar  example  (chrestiains  :  sains)  from 
the  Rom.  de  Mahomet,  1.  1091.  Angier  writes  premerain: 
Maximiain ,  Gregoire  257,  and  Miss  Pope,  l.  c.,  p.  14,  adds 
arrien  :  sen,  arriens  :  tens  but  arrieins  :  veins  from  the  Dia¬ 
logues  of  the  same  author.  There  are,  no  doubt,  other 
instances  of  this  orthography  that  might  be  collected,  as 
for  example  primeraine  :  meiaine  (moyenne)  in  the  Bestiaire 
de  Gervaise,1  1.  503,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  harvest 
outside  of  the  manuscripts  of  R.  Troie  and  B.  Chron.  is 
limited. 

Occasionally  a  Latinism  of  the  type  cited  above,  p.  644, 
may  be  found ;  cp.  ancian  :  an,  Gaimar  1682,  but  ancien : 
mien,  ibid.  4319,  Oetavian  :  pan,  Marie  de  France,  Lanval 
85,  Troian  :  oan,  Eneas  1699,  2109,  Troians  :  chans,  R.  Troie 
2299.  Suchier,  Altfrz.  Gram.,  p.  75,  adds  some  similar 
orthographies  from  the  R.  Rou  and  the  Ps.  Cott.,  but  all 
such  examples  are  rare  and  do  not  affect  our  problem. 

3).  aint  —  eint,  ainte  —  einte. 

As  in  the  preceding  rime-groups  the  Anglo-Norman  and 
Norman  texts  under  consideration  present  little  beyond 


lCp.  Romania,  i,  pp.  426-442. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


649 


simple  mixture  of  the  two  syllables.  However,  as  before, 
a  few  isolated  rimes  show  the  direction  in  which  the  develop¬ 
ment  tended.  Suchier,  l.  c.,  p.  73,  cites  nient :  veint  and 
nient  :  desteint  from  Sanson  de  Nantuil.  We  may  add,  from 
B.  Chron.,  ateint :  destruiement  17391,  teint  (tenet)  :  aimt 
207 7 9,  feint  (fingit)  :  vient  21670,  seinte  :  reinte  (redempta), 
Angier ,  Gregoire  1467  and  ceynt  (cinctum)  :  torment ,  fivang. 
de  Nicod&me,  version  C,  767. 

4).  aindre  —  eindre. 

Our  texts  here  show  only  fusion  of  the  two,  but  never 
rime  with  endre  in  such  words  as  prendre.  Since  verbs  with 
this  ending  are  comparatively  frequent,  it  is  rather  remark¬ 
able  that  this  should  be  the  case.  Only  mendre — meindre  < 
minor  might  seem  to  contradict  this  rule.  However  this  con¬ 
tradiction  does  not  exist  in  reality,  for  mendre  appears  to  be  the 
original  form  of  the  word  and  the  diphthong  in  meindre  is  due  to 
the  analogy  of  meins  <  minus.  As  a  matter  of  fact  mendre 
is  found  frequently  at  the  end  of  the  line,  but,  as  far  as  my 
observation  goes,  it  rimes  only  with  words  like  entendre , 
B.  Chron.  403,  22516,  descendre  6243,  prendre  10159  and 
never  with  remaindre ,  feindre  and  the  like.  This  is  true  of 
all  the  Norman  texts  in  this  study,  the  Clef  d?  Amour  in¬ 
cluded.1 

An  instance  of  what  indeed  might  seem  to  be  mixture  of 
eindre  with  endre  exists  in  strophes  54  and  1 1 1  of  the  Livre 
des  Manures ;  cp.  r aindre  (r.  raeindre)  :  pleindre  :  remeindre  : 
ateindre ,  str.  54,  and  def endre  :  vendre  :  prendre  :  raiendre , 

1 1  have  noted  but  one  exception  to  this  rule,  meindres  :  greindres,  Brand. 
1004,  which  invites  construction  into  an  argument  for  the  pronunciation  of 
greindres  of  the  type  of  eint :  ent  just  noted.  However  the  matter  is  too 
doubtful  to  be  pressed  ;  we  probably  have  to  do  simply  with  an  early 
sporadic  case  of  the  analogy  so  common  later.  The  old  form  persisted  for 
a  long  time.  Christine  de  Pisan  rimes  chambre  :  tendre  :  remembre  :  mendre , 
Livre  du  Dit  de  Poissy  280,  though  elsewhere  she  joins  meindre  :  remaindre, 
Livre  du  Due  des  Vrais  Amants ,  1155. 


650 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


str.  111.  Both  raindre  and  raiendre  represent  the  same 
Latin  verb  redimere  >  raembre,  which  on  account  of  its 
unique  form  was  drawn  over  to  the  -ndre  verbs,  like  tre- 
mere  >  oraindre.  But  while  the  stemvowel  in  both  forms, 
raeindre  and  raiendre  is  entirely  analogical,  it  is  probably 
wrong  to  consider  the  two  as  equivalent.  The  former,  pro¬ 
nounced  raeindre ,  could  rime  with  pleindre,  the  latter  was 
raiendre ,  if  not  raendre,  which  forms  rime  with  prendre. 

Another  rime  pair  with  similar  bearing  stands  in  Guil¬ 
laume  le  Marshal,  1.  2883,  remendre  ( =remaindre )  :  at- 
tendre .  Unfortunately  this  rime  loses  its  argumentative 
value  from  the  fact  that  the  last  six  letters  of  the  second 
word  represent  a  manuscript  correction  not  written  by  the 
original  scribe  in  the  place  of  something  else  that  has  been 
erased. 

5) .  einge. 

As  early  as  the  Brandan  this  syllable  could  rime  with 
enge  as  in  prenge.  It  is  not  of  frequent  occurrence,  being 
found  only  in  those  peculiar  Anglo-Norman  present  sub¬ 
junctives  in  -ge  as  meinge  :  prenge,  Brandan  119.  Since 
the  second  word  here  certainly  contained  the  nasal  f,  cp. 
calengent :  prengent,  ibid.  1472,  meinge  must  have  had  at 
least  the  value  of  meinge. 

6) .  aine  —  eine. 

The  rimes  for  the  most  part  show  only  the  usual  mixture 
of  the  two  syllables.  Instances  proving  the  development 
of  the  pronunciation  in  the  direction  of  fne  are  rather  late. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  the  combination  of  g  — nasal  -f-  e  is  rare 
in  Old  French.  Its  main  representatives  are  the  French 
forms  of  femina  and  regnum.  Rimes  between  these  two 
words  are  well  known  in  Old  French  texts.  Without  in  any 
way  aiming  to  be  exhaustive  I  may  cite  Comput  469,  Eneas 
3,  Wace  Brut ,  though  not  the  R.  Rou ,  cp.  Pohl,  Rom.  Forsch ., 
II,  p.  554,  R.  Troie  3937,  B.  Chron.  1621,  B.  Trist.  287  as 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


651 


texts  where  an  and  en  are  not  mixed  in  rime,  from  which  it 
follows  that  femme  :  regne  means  f$me  :  rgne  or  r%ne.  Now 
these  same  texts  in  a  limited  number  of  rime  pairs  show 
these  words  joined  to  others  in  -aine  or  -eine ;  cp.  peine  : 
regne ,  Eneas  2523,  estreine  (strena)  :  regne,  R.  Troie  8317, 
Loherenne  :  femme,  B.  Chron.  18052,  regne  :  Loheregne,  ibid, 
18066,  vilaine  :  reigne ,  B.  Trist.  57.  The  conclusion  that  in 
these  texts  aine  or  eine  mean  at  least  fme  will  be  difficult 
to  avoid.1 

Another  combination  of  rimes  pointing  in  the  same  direc¬ 
tion  is  that  of  aine  or  eine  with  iene,  similar  to  that  of  ain(s) 
or  ein(s)  with  ien(s)  already  noted.  As  earliest  instance  of 
this  fusion  might  be  cited  paaine  :  soltaine ,  Eneas  2141, 
though  it  is  of  course  possible  to  regard  this  rime  as  a 
Latinism.  It  is  different,  however,  with  plataine  :  Egiptaine, 
R.  Troie  22995,  and  B.  Chron .  vilaine  :  paene ,  1-951,  do- 
maine  :  paene,  n-15812,  (cp.  anciene  :  paene,  II-57,  paene: 
crestiene,  ii— 3073,  4383),  mundaines  :  celestienes,  ii— 20898, 
estrienne  (strena ) :  Bauveisienne,  n-18484,  Rentiene  (=de 
Reims )  :  plaine,  B.  Trist.  3727  and  maenne  ( moyenne )  : 
enehaenne  (==  enehaine),  Clef  d’ Amours  3419.  These  words 
rime  only  if  aine  or  eine  are  pronounced  eine  or  ene. 

The  Livre  des  Manures  has  three  strophes  which  make 
some  difficulty;  cp.  the  following  rimes:  anciennes  :paien- 
nes  :  sennes  (synodos)  :  fames  (feminas),  str.  247  ;  fame 
(femina)  :  fame  (fama)  :  raiemme  :  jame  (gemma),  str.  60; 
enteime :  deraime  :  sorseime  :  feme,  str.  312.  It  is  seen  that 
in  strophe  60  fame  =  fama  seems  to  oppose  the  value  of 
for  fame= femina.  Kremer  in  his  edition  of  the  text 
p.  27  cites  the  various  explanations  of  this  discrepancy  that 

1 A  single  rime  in  Adgar’s  Legends ,  mainent :  chantent  4-9,  seems  to  con¬ 
tradict  this  conclusion.  It  is  so  unique  that  I  regard  it  as  erroneous  for 
hantent  :  chantent. 


652 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


have  been  offered,  but  they  all  fail  to  satisfy.  It  seems  to 
have  been  overlooked  that  the  line  containing  fame  =  fama, 
60  b,  is  too  short  by  one  syllable.  While  this  fact  tends  to 
throw  doubt  on  the  reading  of  the  line,  it  does  not,  however, 
prove  that  the  rime  is  incorrect.  We  will  have  to  accept 
femme  as  riming  in  this  text  both  with  e  and  with  a.  The 
same  phenomenon  is  not  unknown  in  other  texts  where  an 
and  en  are  kept  distinct.  Cp.  realme  :  femme,  Gaimar  3601, 
but  mereenne  :  femme  2507,  regne  :  femme  2531,  fame  :  dame , 
R.  Troie  18154  ;  see  also  Rom.  Stud.,  ii,  p.  39,  and  Rom. 
For seh.,  ii,  p.  554. 

7).  aime  —  eime. 

Only  very  few  rimes  of  this  category  are  available. 
Since  eime  <  ema  does  not  exist  in  Old  French,  dime  < 
ama  can  only  rime  with  itself.  Later,  however,  when  dime 
had  become  eime,  a  few  other  words  having  gme  became 
available.  This,  I  believe,  is  the  explanation  of  esment 
(estimant)  :  eleiment ,  Angier ,  Gregoire  645,  aime  :  baptesme, 
Simund  de  Freine,  Vie  de  Saint  Georges  1324  and  meime  {= 
mesme)  :  aime,  Rom.  de  Philosophie  981  of  the  same  author. 

Suchier,  Altfrz.  Gram.,  p.  71,  thinks  esment  stands  for 
eiment  and  that  the  disappearing  s  had  called  forth  a  j  which 
formed  a  diphthong  with  the  preceding  vowel.  Granting 
that  this  was  the  case,  we  should  even  then  have  evidence  in 
these  rimes  that  dime  had  become  eime.  I  doubt,  however, 
whether  this  explanation  is  exact.  That  s  before  l  and  n 
in  the  course  of  disappearance  passed  through  a  sound 
capable  of  palatalizing  the  following  consonant  seems  fairly 
reasonable,  but  this  question  can  not  enter  into  the  dis¬ 
cussion  here.  Examples  in  support  are  cited  by  Wal- 
berg,  Le  Bestiaire  de  Philippe  de  Thaun,  p.  lxv.  It  does 
not  follow,  however,  that  the  process  was  identical  before 
m.  Here  it  is  much  more  likely  that  the  intervening  sound 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


653 


was  a  voiceless  m,  such  as  Wulff1  has  shown  to  exist 
under  similar  circumstances  in  Andalusian  Spanish.  When 
finally  all  trace  of  the  s  had  disappeared,  the  vowel  in  words 
like  esment ,  baptesme  was  g,  and  ei  and  ey  are  only  graphic 
variants  utilized  by  the  copyist  to  represent  this  sound. 
Then  these  words  were  pronounced  gment,  baptgme  and  the 
rimes  in  question  are  entirely  parallel  to  those  cited  above 
for  eine  :  gne. 

This  conclusion  is  emphasized  by  the  following  rimes  of 
crime  :ieme  from  the  R.  Thebes;  cp.  crement  :  ement  5077, 
creme  :  afeme  (adfamat)  7377,  entrement :  crement  8603, 
creme  :  erne  9199. 

All  the  evidence  presented  so  far  goes  to  prove  that  in 
the  northwest  of  France  and  in  England  ai  and  ei  with  n 
had  become  ein  about  the  middle  of  the  12th  century,  and 
that  under  favorable  circumstances  the  sound  could  even 
approximate  gn.  The  evidence  of  the  orthography  points  in 
the  same  direction.  We  have  to  do  with  a  region  where  for 
the  most  part  an  and  en  are  kept  distinct.  A  scribe  who 
pronounced  en  -|-  cons .  as  $n  would  not  have  written  en  for 
either  ain  or  ein,  had  he  pronounced  these  am,  as  Brandan 
enz  (ainz)  1010;  desclem  534,  sen  (saint)  157,  nor  would  he 
have  introduced  ein  in  mendre  if  meindre  had  meant  maindre 
for  him  as  in  the  rime  tendre  :  meindre,  Ipomedon  2651.  A 
survey  of  the  orthographic  habits  in  Anglo-Norman  texts 
can  be  found  in  Slimming’ s  edition  of  Boeve  de  Haumtone,2 
pp.  185,  196-7,  and  201,  and  in  the  manuscripts  of  conti¬ 
nental  texts  similar  habits  prevail.  Gorlich  arrives  at  the 
same  conclusions  from  the  study3  of  the  original  documents 


1  Un  chapitre  de  phonetique  andalouse ,  in  Recueil  de  Memoires  philologiques 
presente  a  Monsieur  Gaston  Paris  par  ses  elh'es  suedois ,  1889,  pp.  45  ff. 

2  Bibliotheca  Normannica,  vol.  vn. 

3  Gorlich,  Die  Nordwestlichen  Dialekte  der  Langue  d?  Oil ,  Franz.  Stud. ,  V, 
Heft  3,  pp.  17-18  and  41. 


654 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


of  the  Northwest  dialects  of  the  second  half  of  the  13th  and 
the  14th  centuries.  Besides  the  noncommittal  ein  he  cites  e 
in  preschene,  prochen ,  Alen ,  men ,  nonen,  fren,  plen,  plene, 
Magdalene ,  ae  in  maen,  daraene,  preehaens,  prochaenne,  aei 
in  Alaein ,  prochaein ,  ee  in  dareen,  oei  in  Moeine  and  oe  in 
damoene,  demoene. 

We  may  close  this  division  of  our  subject  with  the  fol¬ 
lowing  passage  from  the  Orthographia  Galliea 1  which  em¬ 
phasizes  the  conclusions  at  which  we  have  arrived ;  6  item 
diversitas  scripture  facit  aliquarum  diccionum  quamvis  in 
voce  sint  consimiles,  verbi  gracia  ....  teindre  tendre  tenir 
attendre  atte  [i]  ndre  ....  aymer  amer/  which  can  of  course 
only  mean  tendre  and  teindre,  attendre  and  atteindre  are  pro¬ 
nounced  alike.  The  rule  is  found  only  in  mss.  C  and  O,  i.  e., 
in  the  later  version  of  this  earliest  grammatical  treatise,  but 
even  thus  it  gives  valuable  evidence  of  the  pronunciation  of 
our  syllables  in  the  14th  century,  and  is  entirely  in  harmony 
with  what  we  have  been  able  to  observe  so  far. 

II. 

Leaving  the  Norman  and  Anglo-Norman  division  of  Old 
French  texts  we  may  now  continue  the  history  of  our 
syllables  into  the  dialect  from  which  the  Modern  French 
most  directly  sprang. 

One  of  the  earliest  texts  to  be  cited  here  is  the  Roman  de 
VEscoufle,  written  about  the  year  1200.  In  this  poem  en 
and  an  -f-  cons,  are  kept  apart  in  rime,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  feme  rimes  with  ame,  as  1.  125,  and  gemme  with 
dame,  as  1.  5739.  But  as  already  pointed  out  above,  p.  652, 
the  same  phenomenon  can  be  observed  in  other  texts  sepa- 

1  Ed.  Stiirzinger,  Altfrz.  Bibl.,  vol.  vm  (Heilbronn,  1884),  p.  14. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


655 


rating  en  and  an.1  The  nasal  fn  exists  in  such  rimes  as 
suensisens  3189,  vit  Ven:Julien  4867,  enmena  :  cil  Ven  a 
3647,  amena  \  dame  en  a  5969.  In  the  light  of  these  losenge : 
vos  ain  ge  2877  can  only  be  interpreted  as  meaning  lozenge  : 
vozgnge.  The  Roman  de  Guillaume  de  Dole ,  which  Gaston 
Paris  was  inclined  to  attribute  to  the  same  author,2  shows 
the  same  mixture  of  feme :  dame  1508,  3008,  and  rimes 
maint  (manet)  :  esloint  4192.  This  fusion  of  ain  :oiny  which 
occurs  here,  as  far  as  I  know,  for  the  first  time  speaks  for  a 
pronunciation  gn  :  ogn.  Another  isolated  early  example  of 
the  same  rime,  though  of  uncertain  date,  can  be  found  in  the 
Rom.  de  Renard ,  branch  9,  written  by  the  priest  of  La 
Croix-en-Brie,  moines  (monachus)  :  poines  (penas)  505. 

From  this  date  forward  it  is  possible  to  cite  an  uninter¬ 
rupted  series  of  texts,  including  Marot,  all  showing  the  same 
fusion  of  ain  and  om,  which  thus  present  unmistakable  evi¬ 
dence  that  in  the  dialect  centering  in  Paris  both  ain  and  ein 
were  steadily  developing  toward  their  modern  value.  I 
copy  this  list  without  further  comment,  and  as  much  as 
possible  in  chronological  order.  The  fact  that  these  rimes 
are  few  in  number  in  comparison  with  the  ain  :  ein  rimes 
probably  means  that  they  were  felt  to  be  irregularities  or 
rime  licences,  and  this  will  have  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
the  final  estimation  of  their  meaning. 

Gaufrey 3  —  hautaine  :  Karlemaine  :  humaine  :  emmaine  : 
regne  :  souveraine  :  demouraine  :  demaine  :  essoigne  :  Couloigne  : 
entente  :  jenne  (=jeune)  :  quarantaine ,  p.  316. 

1  For  Picard  and  Wallonian  cp.  Haase,  Das  Verhalten  der  pikardischen  und 
luallonischen  Denkmaler  des  Mittelalters  in  Bezug  auf  a  und  e  vor  gedecktem  n. 
Halle,  1880,  pp.  41  ff. 

2Cp.  Romania ,  xxxii,  pp.  487-488.  He  there  suggests  1185  as  the  date 
of  the  Escoufle  and  1200  as  that  of  Guillaume  de  Dole.  The  last  edition  of 
his  Lilt.  Frang.  au  moyen  dge  places  Guillaume  de  Dole  in  1200  and  the  Escoufle 
in  1210. 

3  Cited  by  Engelmann,  l.  c.,  p.  23. 


656 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


Roman  de  la  Rose — paintes  (pinctas)  :  cointes,  I,  pp.  20, 
30,  46-47,  paintes  :  pointes  (punctas)  I,  p.  31,  maintes  : 
ointes,  I,  pp.  249-250,  poine  (pena)  :  moine  (monachus) 
i,  p.  100,  saine  :  essoine ,  i,  p.  73. 

Rutebuef  —  avaine  :  vaine  :  couvaine ,  I,  p.  33,  poigne 
(pugna)  :  sovraine  :  moine  :  essoine ,  I,  p.  153,  lainne  :  avainne: 
semainne ,  n,  p.  57,  demaine  :  moine,  n,  pp.  122,  137,  moine : 
emmaine,  n,  p.  129,  Jordain  :  enjoin ,  II,  p.  276,  nonains  : 
sains  :  certains  :  mains  (minus)  ii,  p.  42,  plaindre  ijoindre : 
poindre,  I,  p.  216,  saintes  :  j ointes  :  empraintes  :  maintes, 
n-253. 

Eustache  Deschamps  —  moins  (minus)  :  mains  (*manti)  : 
mains  :  vains,  i,  xxv,  conjoint :  ^>om£ :  vaint  (vincit)  i-lxxi, 
doint  (donet)  :  pourpoint  :  point  :  point  :  faint  (fingit)  : 
vaint :  (vincit)  ii-ccxl. 

Christine  de  Pisan — loings  :  moins  :  besoings  ifroins  (fre- 
num)  i,  p.  26,  moins  :  besoings,  I,  p.  56,  mains  :  mains 
(minus)  i,  p.  123,  hi,  p.  40. 

Miracles  de  Nostre  Dame — moins  :  chastellains ,  iv-178, 
lointain  :  soing,  xi-9,  moine  (monachus)  :  amaine,  xvm- 
1313,  estraine  :  royne,  iv— 908,  cp.  Guillaume  Alexis  and 
Villon  below. 

Charles  d’  Orleans — plains  (plango)  :  plains  (plenus)  : 
moins  :  mains,  1-192,  besoing  :  loing  :  baing  :  poing,  n-98, 
avoine  :  Touraine  : paine  :  sepmaine,  n-157. 

Guillaume  Alexis — fainctes  (finctas)  :  coinctes,  Deb.  de 
V Homme  et  de  la  Femme  128,  traine  :  demaine  :  pourmaine  : 
chanoine  :  gaine  :  maine,  Blason  des  Faulses  Amours,  str.  40, 
primeraine :  essoine :  Anthoine  :  royne  :  villaine :  loingtaine,  ibid. 
61,  mains  :  mains  (minus)  :  plains  ;  mains :  poins  :  (pugnus)  : 
point  (punctum),  ibid.  str.  80,  chanoines  :  peines  :  demaines , 
Martyrologue  des  Fausses  Langues  254. 

IJAmant  rendu  Cordelier  —  mondaines  :  avoynes  :  marjo- 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


657 


laines  :  certaines  410,  saindre  (cingere)  :  estraindre  ijoindre  : 
atteindre  1706,  baings  :aubefoings  ipoings  :  mains  1762. 

Villon — fain  (famem)  \foing  (fenum),  Poesies  Diverses 
140,  bain  (ms.  boing )  :  poing,  ibid.  148,  Anthoine  :  Saine  : 
essoine  :  ydoyne ,  Pet.  Test.  226. 

Marot — moindre :  paindre,  1—104,  moindre  ijoindre,  1—162, 
veine  :  Antoine ,  1-239,  Antoine  :  souvienne ,  1-239,  moins  :  in- 
humains ,  n-313. 

In  the  light  of  these  rimes  certain  other  combinations, 
which  would  have  little  argumentative  value  by  themselves, 
may  be  advanced  as  pointing  in  the  same  direction. 

Roman  de  la  Rose — vaine  :  raine  (regnum),  i— 15,  Lohe - 
regne 1 :  regne ,  ibid.,  1-5. 

Rutebuef — raine  (regnum)  :  chanoine ,  II-119,  regne  : 
resne  :  saine  :  plaine  :  estraine  :  raisne ,  1-127,  raignes  :  raines 
(ranas),  ii-90,  vilaine  :  raine  (regnat),  h-206,  amaine  : 
raine  (regnat),  II-254,  tain  (teneo ) :  soucretain,  II-118, 
137,  139,  vain  (venio)  :  vain ,  n-139. 

Guiot  de  Provins — Aquitaine  :  Vienne ,  Bible  334,  eitoien  : 
vilein  998,  Magdalene  :  eertene  2230,  Egipeiene  :  Elene  2248. 

Miracles  de  Nostre  Dame — Estienne  :  maine,  xiv— 389. 

Eustache  Deschamps — Requiem  :  prouchain  :  moien  :  bien , 
i-XLViii,  certain  :  cappitain  :  tain  (teneo),  i-clxxiv,  Ro- 
mains  :  Rains  :  plains  :  restrains  :  tiens  :  certains ,  H-CCLIII, 
plaine  :  prouchaine ,  I— xii,  paine  :  aviengne ,  I— x  VI,  craime 2 
( crhne )  :  aime,  i-xxxm. 

Christine  de  Pisan — Athenes  :  certaines ,  I,  p.  250,  peine  : 
Polixenne  :  vaine  :  prochaine ,  Debat  de  Deux  Amants  692, 
ancients  :  humaines  :  fontaines  :  mondaines ,  Livre  du  Dit  de 

1The  ending  in  this  word,  which  can  be  found  elsewhere  and  earlier,  is 
evidently  due  to  analogy  with  regne ,  as  if  the  word  meant  the  kingdom  of 
Lorraine. 

*  The  pronunciation  is  indicated  by  the  rime  baptesme  :  cresme,  Mir.  d. 
Nostre  Dame ,  xx-643. 


658 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


Poissy  660,  Magdaleine  :  peine,  Oraison  de  Nostre  Seigneur 
215. 

Guillaume  Alexis — penne  (penna)  :  penne  (pena)  :  penne 
(=  Mod.  Fr.  panne),  Le  a  b  c  des  Doubles  1056.  This 
unique  composition,  among  other  peculiarities,  is  composed 
entirely  in  rimes  bquivoqu&es,  whence  the  spelling  of  the 
second  rime  word.  There  can  be  no  doubt  about  its  pro¬ 
nunciation.1 

L’Amant  rendu  Cordelier — jenne  (=jeune)  :  mondaine  169  ; 
cp.  the  same  combination  cited  from  Gaufrey  above,  p.  655. 

Mister e  du  Viel  Testament — Damascene  :  regne  4341. 

Villon — douzaine  :  Estienne 2 :  paine  :  sepmaine,  Grant  Test. 
1913,  roynes  :  regnes  :  Penes  :  estrenes,  ibid.  414,  Neapoli - 
taines  :  Pruciennes  :  Egipciennes:  Castellaines,  ibid.  1524,  vil- 
laine :  Helaine,  Poesies  Diver ses  42,  Magdelaine :  laine,  ibid.  53. 

Marot — veine  :  Antoine,  1-239,  Antoine  :  souvienne,  1-239, 
tienne  :  estraine,  1-245,  Magdalaine  :  Helaine  :  souveraine  : 

1In  view  of  the  positive  evidence  of  this  rime  and  those  cited  above, 
ayme  (  amat)  :jlamme  :  femme  :  blasme  :  flame  :  enflame,  Blason  des  Faulses 
Amours,  str.  105,  and  dame  :  fame,  Passe  Temps  de  tout  Homme  et  de  toute 
Femme  1083  must  be  accepted  asLatinisms  without  evidence  for  the  history 
of  our  syllables.  Similar  rimes  are  cited  by  Metzke,  Her  Dialect  von  lle- 
de-Franee  im  13.  und  14.  Jahrhundert,  Herritf  s  Archiv ,  lxy,  p.  61.  The 
same  is  probably  true  of  claime  :  aime  :  semme  (semin at)  :  reme  ( =  rame ) 
in  Christine  de  Pisan,  Debat  de  deux  Amants,  484. 

2  Villon  rimes  also  ien  with  &  as  in  ancien  :  Valerien  :  an,  Grant  Test.  1552. 
A  similar  rime  is  aneiens  :  sciens  in  Guillaume  Alexis,  Le  ab  c  des  Doubles 
113.  The  editors  Piaget  and  Picot  in  a  note  to  this  line  cite  aneiens  :  Cana- 
neans,  Mist.  Viel  Test.,  m-23050,  and  crestiens :  ceans,  Montaiglon,  Becueil, 
1-53,  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  similar  rimes  are  occasionally  found  in 
other  authors  of  this  same  period.  We  may  add  ancienne  :  Adriane  :  sienne, 
Guillaume  Alexis,  Martyrologue  des  Fausses  Langues  198,  Adriane  :  moyenne, 
ibid.  209,  as  showing  the  same  liberty  also  for  the  feminine  form  of  this 
ending.  Yet  the  regular  pronunciation  of  this  author  was  iene,  as  shown 
by  the  rimes  sienne :  reviengne,  Faintes  du  Monde  266  and  preigne  :  appar- 
tiengne,  Passe  Temps  de  tout  Homme  3703.  Cp.  also  Nvrop,  Gram.  I, 
§  218. 


A I  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


659 


seraine,  1—337,  Heleine  :  aveine  :  alaine  :  plciine,  1—418,  Philo - 
mene  :  meine ,  1—488,  peine  :  Clymene,  ii— 175. 

We  must  now  face  the  difficult  question  how  this  rather 
definite  evidence  of  these  rimes  extending  over  a  period 
covering  several  centuries  can  be  harmonized  with  the  state¬ 
ments  of  the  early  grammarians 1  in  regard  to  the  pronuncia¬ 
tion  of  our  syllables.  The  natural  interpretation  of  the  rime 
of  ain  or  ein  with  oin  as  meaning  en  :  oen  appears  to  be 
invalidated  by  the  fact  that  the  early  grammarians  teach  that 
these  syllables  arrived  in  the  16th  century  with  a  full 
pronunciation  of  their  diphthong.  To  harmonize  this  dis¬ 
crepancy  it  might  be  argued  that  the  grammarians  were 
influenced  in  their  statements  by  the  written  form  of  the 
syllables.  Yet  this  point  of  view  is  scarcely  tenable  in  view 
of  the  rather  positive  assertions  made  by  the  more  accurate 
among  them,  who  even  go  so  far  as  to  make  use  of  phonetic 
transcriptions,  as  Meigret  and  Baif;  Cp.  Thurot,  l.  c.,  p. 
342.  Or  it  might  be  maintained  that  the  popular  pro¬ 
nunciation  differed  from  the  literary.  The  people  said  en , 
but  good  taste  demanded  ein.  Here  we  are  met  by  the  fact 
that  the  earlier  authorities  are  practically  unanimous  in  their 
statements,  and  that  we  have  in  general  little  evidence  of 
such  discrimination  on  their  part.  There  seems  no  possi¬ 
bility  of  avoiding  the  acceptance  of  their  testimony  as  fairly 
exact,  and  if  this  be  so,  our  problem  consists  in  finding  the 
explanation  which  will  coordinate  their  assertions  with  what 
seems  to  be  the  evident  history  of  our  syllables.  In  an 
article  on  The  Pronunciation  of  the  French  Nasal  Vowels  in 
ain  ein  in  the  xvi  and  xvii  Centuries  published  some  years 
ago  in  the  Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association, 
ix,  pp.  451-461,  I  endeavored  to  interpret  this  whole  body 

1Cp.  Thurot,  De  la  Prononciation  Frarqaise,  Paris,  1881,  vol.  I,  pp.  321 
and  342. 


660 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


of  evidence  from  this  point  of  view.  I  now  desire  to 
modify  the  conclusions  reached  there  to  a  slight  degree,  on 
the  basis  of  the  material  presented  in  this  study. 

The  hidden  difficulty  of  the  whole  problem  probably  lies 
in  the  value  of  the  n.  The  i  preceding  it  being  originally  a 
glide  ’which  developed  between  the  nasalized  a  or  e  and  the 
dental  n ,  as  in  vanum  >  vain ,  plenum  >  plein,  it  is  evi¬ 
dent  that  as  long  as  this  n  kept  its  original  value,  which 
was  the  case  when  the  syllables  in  question  were  final  or 
followed  by  a  consonant,  or  as  long  as  eine  was  pronounced 
eine,  the  conditions  which  had  produced  it  originally  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  potent,  and  ein  and  eine  must  have  tended  to 
retain  the  diphthongal  value  of  their  vowels.  Here  we 
have  the  explanation  why  the  grammarians  almost  unani¬ 
mously  speak  of  a  diphthong  in  this  connection.  It  is 
perfectly  possible,  to  be  sure,  to  pronounce  en  without  an 
intervening  i ,  and  that  this  was  often  done  is  proved  by  the 
rime  licences  which  we  have  observed  in  the  earlier  portions 
of  this  study.  But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  when 
eins  rimes  with  ens,  the  dental  n  is  still  present,  and  the 
rime  does  not  represent  the  modern  pronunciation.  And 
similarly  the  union  of  eine  with  oine  or  ienne  means  e(i)ne  : 
oene  or  iene ,  and  not  gne  :  ogne  or  igne. 

The  fundamental  changes,  by  which  the  modern  value 
of  our  syllables  was  established,  took  place  during  the  16th 
century.  At  that  period  the  dental  n  disappeared,  the 
diphthong  became  a  simple  vowel,  and  the  nasal  vowel  in 
the  feminine  syllable  became  an  oral  vowel,  ein  developed 
into  g  and  eine  into  gne.  How  this  change  came  about  must 
be  a  matter  of  surmise.  Probably  the  diphthong  was  at 
first  nasalized  throughout,  ein  became  em,  and  its  second 
half  then  passed  rapidly  through  gen  >  ggn  >  g.  In  the 
article  cited  I  suggested  a  shifting  of  the  accent  from  gen  ]> 
gen  for  the  latter  half  of  the  century.  This  presumption 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


661 


was  based  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  statements  of 
certain  of  the  grammarians,  which  seem  to  demand  such  an 
inference.  However,  their  language  is  obscure  and  it  is  not 
impossible  that  this  interpretation  is  imperfect.  A  shift  of 
the  accent  is  certainly  not  necessary,  for  |en  can  become  § 
quite  as  easily  as  gen,  provided  the  dental  n  becomes  silent. 
In  the  case  of  gine  the  process  was  not  quite  identical.  Here 
the  nasal  quality  of  the  vowel  disappeared,  and  in  conse¬ 
quence  the  diphthong  gi  was  readily  reduced  to  a  simple 
vowel,  but  the  dental  n  remained ;  eine  become  gne. 

If  this  point  of  view  is  accurate,  the  Old  French  rimes 
harmonize  perfectly  with  the  evidence  of  the  16th  century 
grammarians,  and  it  is  seen  that  the  growth  of  our  syllables 
was  constantly  in  a  uniform  direction  toward  their  Modern 
French  value. 


III. 

We  may  now  turn  to  a  group  of  texts  in  which  the 
development  made  evident  so  far  has  not  taken  place,  and 
where,  on  the  contrary,  ein  has  become  ain. 

Texts  in  assonances  showing  this  development  are  enu¬ 
merated  by  Engelmann,  l.  c.,  pp.  22  if.  The  evidence  is 
contained  in  the  laisses  having  ai  and  ei  -f  nasal  in  asso¬ 
nance  with  a  or  6  +  nasal  +  consonant.  Since  an  and  en 
have  here  undoubtedly  the  value  of  an,  it  follows  that  ain 
and  ein  were  pronounced  din.  Cp.  the  following  assonances : 

Aie  dy  Avignon — comence  :Elainne  :  dame ,  p.  53. 

Aiol — porpensent  :  Losane  :  Bretaigne  :  renge,  11.  8768  ff., 
bataille  :  Chartres  :  kaine  (catena)  :  arse ,  11.  8800  ff. 

Ogier — demain  :  grant  2318,  France  latendre  5970,  gentes: 
Bomaine  8497,  lantaine  :  cravente  ipoissance  9034. 

Benaus  de  Montauban — Karlesmaine  :  remaigne  :  ceigne  : 
ensamble  :  Flandre :  Bomaine  142. 


662 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


Amis  et  Amiles — - parrain  :  main  :  desirrans  :  approchant : 
vaillant :  gaaing  :  sain  :  Romains  :  serjant  2499,  plains  (ple- 
nus)  :  sains  :  mains  :  certain  3080,  convent  :  volant  :  gent  : 
serjans  iforment  1803. 

Jourdains  de  Blaivies — Jordains  :  dolans  :  vans  (ventus) 
2192,  parrain  :  certain  :  Jordain  3034. 

Very  often  aigne  and  eigne  are  joined  to  the  words  cited. 
To  introduce  these  into  the  discussion  at  this  point  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  plan  of  this  study,  the  object  being  to  establish 
the  pronunciation  of  ain(e)  and  ein(e)  as  a  basis  for  the 
further  elucidation  of  the  history  of  aigne  and  eigne.  It  is 
sufficient  therefore  for  our  purpose  at  this  point  to  note  that 
in  the  texts  cited  above  both  ain  and  ein  were  unquestion¬ 
ably  din. 

The  search  for  similar  proof  in  the  rimed  texts  has  proved 
rather  fruitless.  I  am  able,  however,  to  cite  the  following 
pairs  of  ain  :  an — Richars  li  Biaus ,  bans  (—  banc)  :  a(i)ns 
2007,  main  :  Flamain  ( =flamand )  1607,  Floris  et  Liriope , 
meshaing  :  awan  563,  Rom.  de  Renart ,  vilein  :  Brian  lb, 
2981,  Octavian ,  ata\i]nt :  garant  2287. 

While  these  assonances  and  rimes  are  few  in  number,  it 
is  interesting  to  note  the  rather  circumscribed  territory  to 
which  the  majority  of  these  texts  belong.  All  have  distinct 
Picard  characteristics.  Aiol  and  Renaut  de  Montauban 
are  classified  by  Grdber,  Grundriss,  as  Francian-Picard. 
Richars  li  Biaus  is  placed  by  Forster,  ed.  p.  ix,  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  French-Belgian  frontier,  and  Knauer1 
agrees  in  the  main  with  this  localisation.  Octavian  is  a 
Picard  text  copied  by  an  Anglo-Norman  scribe. 

In  view  of  these  facts  the  Picard  origin  of  the  trait  under 
consideration  becomes  a  pertinent  inquiry.  The  help  of  the 
assonances  and  rimes  being  exhausted,  our  only  resource  can 


1  Zur  altfranzosischen  Lautlehre ,  Leipzig,  1876. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


663 


be  the  orthography,  to  be  studied  primarily  in  charters  and 
original  documents.  Here  we  must  move  very  cautiously, 
and  conclusions  can  be  established  only  within  certain  limi¬ 
tations.  Yet  where  we  find  written  constantly  am,  ein 

being  almost  unknown,  the  inference  is  certainly  justified, 
that  in  the  opinion  of  the  scribes  the  pronunciation  was  ren¬ 
dered  more  accurately  by  ain  than  by  ein.  Such  is  the  case 
in  the  texts  studied  by  Raynaud,  Le  Pialecte  Picard  dans  le 
Ponthieu ,  Paris,  1876.  In  these  original  documents  extend¬ 
ing  over  the  years  1254—1333  the  orthography  ein  seems 
unknown  ;  cp.  p.  67.  The  same  is  true  of  the  documents 
of  Champagne  examined  by  Forster  as  the  basis  for  his 
study  of  the  language  of  Chrestien  de  Troies,  cp.  Cliges , 
pp.  lxi-lxii.  The  same  predominance  of  ain  we  find  in  the 
manuscripts  of  the  following  texts  examined  for  the  present 
purpose :  Aucassin  et  Nicolete ,  Pis  dou  vrai  Aniel,  Pichars 
li  Biaus,  Ille  et  Galeron ,  Trouvh'es  Beiges  {Beaudouin  de 
Conde,  Jean  de  Conde ,  Queues  de  B&thune ,  Jacques  de  Bai- 
sieux ),  Guillaume  de  Palerne,  Jean  Bodel  {Jeu  de  Saint 
Nicolas),  Adam  de  la  Halle,  {Jeu  de  la  FeuilUe ,  Robin  et 
Marion ),  Floris  et  Liriope,  Robert  le  Diable,  Durmart,  Cheva¬ 
lier  as  deus  Espees,  Raoul  de  Houdenc,  Philippe  de  Beau- 
manoir,  Chronique  de  Floreffe ,l  Froissart.  If  the  argument 
of  the  orthography  is  of  any  value  the  pronunciation  din  for 
both  ain  and  ein  should  be  ascribed  to  these  texts. 

It  is  possible  to  control  this  conclusion  to  a  certain  extent 
by  comparison  with  the  modern  dialects.  Gilli^ron’s  monu¬ 
mental  speech  atlas 2  (the  first  16  fascicules)  contains  a  number 
of  maps  of  service  in  this  connection.  These  tabulate  the 
pronunciation  of  the  words  bain,  andain,  main,  essaim,  Rain, 
faim,  douzaine,  chaine,  faine.  For  all  of  them  the  pre- 

1  Cp.  Peters,  Zs.  f.  rom.  Phil.,  xxi,  p.  12. 

2  Atlas  Linguislique  de  la  France  por  Gilli^ron  et  Edmond,  Champion, 
Paris. 


10 


664 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


ponderance  of  pronunciation  in  the  whole  langue  d’o'il 
territory  is  |  or  gn.  However  there  are  two  regions  where  d 
or  an  with  various  shades  of  vowel  are  the  rule.  These  are 
the  Northern  portion  of  the  department  of  Manche  with 
sporadic  instances  in  Calvados,  and  particularly  the  Northern 
portion  of  Somme  and  the  department  of  Pas  de  Calais,  going 
now  and  then  over  into  the  contiguous  territory.  The  same 
pronunciation  is  cited  by  Eggert,  Zs.  f.  rom.  Phil.,  xm, 
pp.  375  and  380,  for  the  patois  of  Val  de  Saire,  La  Hague, 
Guernsey,  and  Jersey,  and  corroborated  for  the  dialect  of 
Guernsey  by  Lewis,  Publications  of  the  Modern  Language 
Association ,  x,  pp.  18-19  and  27-28.  Now  it  is,  of  course, 
entirely  possible  that  we  have  here  a  modern  development 
of  older  qn  and  gne.  Yet,  if  the  development  of  ein  into 
l  current  in  Modern  Wallonian  is  taken  into  consideration, 
cp.  Gilli6ron’s  Atlas  and  Horning,  Zs.  f.  rom.  Phil.,  ix,  pp. 
482  and  484,  together  with  that  into  on  as  in  von  (vena) 
avon  (a vena)  pon  (pcena)  in  the  ,same  region,  where  an 
older  ei  had  become  oi  under  the  influence  of  a  preceding 
labial,  the  conclusion  is  made  rather  probable  that  the  basis 
of  this  modern  a  is  an  older  din. 

Now  it  is  striking  to  note  the  number  of  texts  in  the  list 
just  cited,  which  fall  into  the  region  described  in  a  general 
way  by  the  words  departments  of  Pas  de  Calais,  Nord,  and 
Somme,  though  to  be  sure  not  all  of  them  can  be  definitely 
assigned  to  this  section.  This  is  the  territory  of  the  Picard 
dialect,  and  these  two  facts  taken  together  seem  to  establish 
the  conclusion  that  the  development  of  ein  to  ain,  made 
evident  by  the  overwhelming  use  of  ain  as  the  graphic 
expression  of  the  sound,  is  a  characteristic  of  the  Picard 
dialect  extending  South  into  the  Francian  and  Champenois. 

The  further  question  of  the  geographical  expansion  of 
this  trait  the  material  at  hand  does  not  solve  entirely.  We 
can  give,  however,  some  indications.  According  to  Forster’s 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


665 


observations  1  it  included  the  district  of  Champagne,  and  in 
that  case  the  same  pronunciation  must  be  assigned  to  the 
Roman  de  Galeran ,  whose  home  probably  lies  in  the  de¬ 
partment  of  Aisne.  But  its  spread  was  stopped  by  the 
Burgundian  dialects,  where,  as  is  well  known,  ein  became 
oin,  while  ain  remained,  thus  showing  that  the  two  syllables 
had  not  coincided.  This  is  the  condition  in  the  Lyon  Yzopet,2 
though  this  text  contains  one  rime,  rainne  (rana)  :  poinne 
(pcena)  165,  of  a  -j-  n  with  e  -j-  n.  The  evidence  collected 
by  Gorlich,  Lev  Burgundische  Dialekt  im  xiii  und  xiv  Jahr- 
hundert ,3  corroborates  this  statement.  In  the  documents 
examined  by  him  a  +  n  is  represented  by  ain  and  ein,  very 
rarely  by  oin ,  p.  18,  while  e  n  appears  regularly  as  om, 
ein ,  ain ,  pp.  62  ff.  Gorlich  is  inclined  to  look  upon  ain  in 
the  latter  case  either  as  a  stage  in  the  development  of  ein  to 
oin ,  or  as  a  later  secondary  alteration  of  om,  but  does  not 
at  all  associate  it  with  ain  from  a  -J-  n.  Further  North  in 
Lorraine  both  a  -{-  n  and  e  -j-  n  are  written  ain ,  ein  and  en, 
as,  for  instance,  in  the  Lorraine  Psalter ,  and  Apfelstedt,  the 
editor 4  of  the  text  attributes  the  value  of  e  to  these  various 
spellings.  Occasionally  the  more  Southern  oin  has  crept  in, 
but  the  former  value  is  confirmed  by  the  modern  forms  of 
the  words  in  question.  In  the  patois  spoken  between  Metz 
and  Belfort  a  -f  n  has  become  f,  while  e  -f-  n  is  i,  except 
after  a  labial,  in  which  case  it  has  become  o  or  on;  cp. 
Horning,  Die  Ostfranzosischen  Grenzdialekte  zwischen  Metz 
und  Belfort ,  Franz.  Stud.,  y  (1887),  pp.  9  and  29-30. 

Outside  of  the  Burgundian-Lorraine  region  and  yet  closely 
related  to  it  we  may  cite  the  Roman  de  Fortune  et  Felicite  of 
the  14th  century  by  Renaut  de  Louhans  studied  by  Nagel 

1  Cliges  von  Christian  von  Troyes,  p.  lxii. 

2Cp.  Forster’s  edition  of  this  text,  Altfrz.  Bibl.,  v,  pp.  xxvii  and  xxxi. 

3  Franzdsische  Studien,  xii  (1889). 

*  Lothringischer  Psalter,  Altfrz.  Bibl.,  iv,  pp.  xii-xiii  and  xxi. 


666 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


in  Zs.  f.  rom.  Phil.,  xv,  pp.  1-24.  We  there  find  such  rimes 
as  plainne  (plena)  :  encienne  :fontainne  :  certainne ,  terriennes  : 
vainnes ,  sains  ifisiciem,  chastellains  :  gar  diem,  biens  :  maim 
which,  though  not  entirely  conclusive,  yet  seem  to  point 
rather  toward  the  pronunciation  |n(e).  In  the  direction  of 
the  Wallonian  we  have  the  Pohne  Moral  and  the  Chronique 
of  Philippe  Mousket.  Neither  text  allows  satisfactory  con¬ 
clusions.  The  former  seems  to  demand  din  for  both  a  and 
e  -f-  n,  but  the  argument  is  based  entirely  on  the  orthog¬ 
raphy,1  and  is  unsatisfactory.  Philippe  Mousket  rimes  ain 
and  ein,  and  often  ain  is  written  for  both.2  The  present 
dialect  of  Namur,  East  of  Tournai  the  probable  home  of 
Philippe  Mousket,  has  g  for  both  syllables ;  cp.  Nieder- 
lander,  Zs.  f.  rom.  Phil.,  xxiv,  pp.  7  and  22. 

Toward  the  West  and  Southwest  the  din  region  also  had 
its  definite  limits.  We  may  note  the  Roman  de  Carite  et 
Miserere  written  probably  at  Molliens- V idame  near  Amiens  ; 
cp.  the  edition  of  this  text  by  van  Hamel,  Paris,  1885, 
p.  cxcv.  Here  we  find  in  strophe  41  of  the  Miserere  the 
rime  pena  :  peine  a,  which  gives  definite  evidence  for  the 
pronunciation  peine  at  least.  The  modern  dialects  around 
Amiens  vary  between  |  and  a ;  cp.  Siitterlin,  Heutige  PiJcard- 
isch-Franzosisohe  Mundarten,  Zs.  f.  rom.  Phil.,  xxvi,  pp.  289 
and  297. 

Before  leaving  this  portion  of  our  study  it  is  necessary  to 
discuss  briefly  the  Estoire  de  la  Guerre  Sainte  written  soon 
after  the  year  1191  by  Ambroise,  an  ordinary  knight  of  the 
third  crusade  in  the  army  of  Richard.  Gaston  Paris  localized 
this  poem  at  Evreux.  The  text  shows  the  usual  confusion 
in  the  rimes  of  ain(e)  and  ein(e),  aindre  and  eindre,  aint(e) 
and  eint(e)  and  no  proof  for  the  pronunciation  could  be 

1  Cloetta,  Poeme  Moral ,  Rom.  Forsch. ,  hi,  pp.  49,  58  and  61. 

2  Link,  Die  Sprache  der  Chronique  Rimee,  Erlangen,  1882. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS.  667 


drawn  from  these,  though  Gaston  Paris,  p.  xxvii  of  the  edi¬ 
tion,  accepts  din  as  the  common  value.  The  difficulty  arises 
through  the  rimes  of  aine  and  erne  with  iene.  We  have  here 
such  pairs  as  Estienes  ipaienes  10488,  cristiaine  : paiene  6353, 
teriane  :  cristiane  41,  3711,  *3975,  cristiane  :  paaine  2323, 
3929,  chaane  (catena)  :  cristiane  3388,  chaane  ipaiane  3935. 
On  the  basis  of  the  last  two  pairs  Gaston  Paris  believed  (p. 
xxvii)  that  a  double  pronunciation  of  iene  must  be  accepted, 
viz.,  on  the  one  hand  the  normal  one  in  paiene  crestiene,  and 
on  the  other  paiaine  crestiaine .  It  is  certain  that  the  local¬ 
ization  of  this  text  at  Evreux  does  not  actually  conflict  with 
the  argument  which  may  be  based  upon  the  modern  patois  of 
this  region ;  cp.  above  p.  664.  But  on  the  other  hand  the 
evidence  for  din  is  absent,  except  such  as  may  be  drawn  from 
the  orthography  ;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  this  may  be  ex¬ 
plained  otherwise.  It  should  be  noted  in  the  first  place  that 
with  the  exception  of  chaane  the  ending  ane  is  restricted  to 
teriane ,  cristiane ,  and  paiane ,  three  common  mediaeval  words, 
whose  Latin  forms  were  familiar  to  every  copyist  and 
might  readily  affect  the  French  form  without  influencing  the 
pronunciation.  If  this  point  of  view  be  valid,  chaane  would 
then  be  merely  an  adaptation  of  the  word  to  its  mate  in 
rime.  If  the  scribe  said  cristiene  and  wrote  cristiane ,  he  could 
also  write  chaane  and  mean  chaaine,  which  he  couples  with 
demaine,  1.  9006.  A  double  pronunciation  is  imaginable  for 
cristiene ,  but  scarcely  for  chaeine.  In  the  next  place  it  should 
be  observed  that  aine  meant  %ne  for  the  scribe,  which  is 
evident  from  the  following  series  of  rimes  :  Avesne  :  regne 
6177,  6637,  Charlemaines  :  regnes  8479,  regne  :  cheveitaigne 
8607,  cheventaine  :  lointaine  7087,  cristiaine  :  paiene  6353. 
Unless  we  are  much  mistaken,  therefore,  the  matter  is  much 
less  complicated  than  Gaston  Paris  imagined,  and  we  have  in 
the  language  of  Ambroise  in  this  particular  another  example 
of  the  type  of  R.  Troie,  B.  Chron.,  and  other  texts  examined 
above,  p.  651. 


668 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


The  present  investigation  has  shown,  I  think,  two  things. 
On  the  one  hand  a  continuous  line  of  assonances  and  rimes 
has  been  cited  proving  the  development  of  ain  in  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  ein  >  en ,  belonging  to  the  Norman  and  subsequent 
Francian  dialect,  and  on  the  other  evidence  has  been  brought 
forward  showing  that  ein  had  become  ain  and  an  in  a  por¬ 
tion  of  the  Picard  and  neighboring  speech  forms. 

IV. 

AIGNE—  EIGNE. 

While  the  mingling  of  aine  and  eine  in  rime  is  frequent 
in  French  texts  after  the  Brandan ,  the  similar  fusion  of 
aigne  and  eigne  became  customary  much  more  slowly. 
Of  the  Anglo-Norman  texts  in  our  list  the  first  to  show  it 
is  the  Mist.  Adam.  Here  we  have,  11.  618-621,  the  follow¬ 
ing  sequence  of  rimes  with  partial  assonance :  enseigne : 
f eigne  :  guerre  :  pleigne.  The  inference  that  both  aigne  and 
eigne  were  pronounced  ene  it  is  of  course  impossible  to  avoid. 

Yet  in  spite  of  this  long  silence  of  the  rimes  on  this  point, 
scrutiny  of  the  earlier  texts  shows  that  this  pronunciation 
must  have  been  common  since  the  beginning  of  the  12th 
century.  In  the  Brandan  aigne  rimes  with  aine  (semaine  : 
eumpaine  592)  and  eigne  with  eine  (meinet  :  enseignet  714, 
1114;  cp.  also  11.  215,  1110,  1252).  Since  aine  and  eine 
are  identical  in  sound,  it  follows  that  the  absence  of  the  rime 
pair  aigne  :  eigne  cannot  be  due  to  a  difference  in  pronuncia¬ 
tion,  and  the  same  inference  is  legitimate  also  for  the  other 
texts  of  this  period;  cp.  St.  Laurent ,  ovraigne  :  peine  67, 
Adgar ,  overaigne  :  peine  2—99,  23—237,  desdeign  :  vilain  30- 
151.  In  the  13th  century  the  fusion  of  the  two  syllables 
in  rime  is  more  frequent ;  cp.  Angler  y  Gregoire ,  gaaingne  : 
enseigne  147,  enfreingne  :  destreingne  911,  enseingne  :  remeingne 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


669 


983,  Char  dry,  Set  Dorm.,  muntainne  :  enseinne  911,  Guil¬ 
laume  le  Marechal,  enseigne  :  remaigne  2947,  enseigne  :  acom- 
paigne  3395,  pleingne  :  enseigne  3823,  plaingne  :  ensenne  4805, 
Bretaingne  :  ensaingne  6505. 

No  deductions  claiming  a  conscious  separation  of  the  sylla¬ 
bles  in  rime  or  inferences  as  to  a  difference  of  pronunciation 
should,  however,  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  such  rimes 
even  at  this  time  are  not  more  frequent.  This  proportion  is 
determined  entirely  by  the  nature  of  the  words  in  point. 
Those  with  aigne  are  on  the  whole  more  frequently  employed 
than  those  with  eigne,  and  this  comparative  relation  is  quite 
well  illustrated  by  the  Ipomedon  of  Hue  de  Rotelande.  In 
the  10578  lines  of  this  poem  I  have  noted  only  one  example 
of  fusion  of  the  two  syllables,  desdegne  \gregne  2389.  At  the 
same  time  eigne  occurs  only  once  in  rime  by  itself,  1.  5161, 
and  pure  aigne  rimes  are  frequent. 

On  the  continent  the  general  picture  is  closely  similar. 
The  Eneas  keeps  aigne  and  eigne  separate.  There  are  12 
rimes  in  aigne  (11.  365,  3147,  4109,  4535,  5003,  5563,  6983, 
7099,  7781,  8033,  9509,  10007),  4  in  eigne  (11.  4523,  5569, 
9485,  9897)  and  one  of  aigne  with  regne,  regne  :  plaigne 
1427.  That  eigne  also  might  have  rimed  with  regne  is 
proved  by  enseigne :  demeine  4523  and  regne  ipeine  2523. 
The  B.  j Rou  contains  23  pure  aigne  rimes  (11.  25,  427,  515, 
661,  671,  1513,  1831,  2597,  2629,  2697,  3931,  3937,  4115, 
4481,  5095,  6099,  7593,  7951,  8685,  8715,  8717,  8719, 
9143),  2  pure  eigne  rimes  (11.  1629,  3941)  and  only  one 
instance  of  fusion,  deigne  :  gr eigne  2607.  We  have  seen 
above,  p.  643,  that  Wace  follows  the  same  habit  for  ain  and 
ein,  but  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  base  conclusions  upon 
this  fact,  because  fusion  of  these  two  syllables  in  rime  is  much 
more  constant  in  the  same  author’s  Brut,  and  we  may  add 
here  that  this  same  text  contains  a  rime  showing  mingling 
of  aigne  with  iegne,  (vaigne :  Bretaigne  6072),  a  type  which 
we  shall  presently  meet  in  other  texts. 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


670 

The  majority  of  the  Norman  texts  in  our  list  presents  the 
same  appearance  as  those  just  considered.  The  Chron.  Mt. 
8.  Mich,  has  8  rimes  in  point,  all  in  aigne  (11.  49,  501,  565, 
783,  1131,  1491,  1649,  2277).  The  last  in  this  list  is 
enfregne  :  maigne,  but  here  the  source  of  the  first  word  is 
infrangere  in  the  place  of  infringere.  The  Liv.  d. 
Man.  has  only  a  single  strophe  (cciv)  in  aigne  ( Espaigne : 
bargaigne  :  gaine  :  ateigne ),  Marie  de  France  does  not  mix 
these  syllables  in  rime,  either  in  the  Fables  or  in  the  Lais 
with  the  exception  of  a  single  example  to  be  cited  presently. 
Beroul  has  3  rimes  in  aigne  (731,  2247,  4029),  2  showing 
fusion,1  saine  (*sanginat)  :  enseigne  777,  enseigne  :  Montaigne 
4017  and  none  in  eigne.  In  Guillaume  le  Clerc’s  Besant  de 
Dieu  and  Bestiaire  there  are  14  rimes  divided  as  follows  : 
5  in  aigne ,  Bes.  Lieu  2355,  3213,  Best  149,  365,  1849  ;  4 
in  eigne ,  Best  1247,  2941,  3075,  3601;  and  5  showing 
fusion:  Bes.  Dieu  desdeign :  meheign  1767,  enpaigne  (im- 
pingat)  :  plaingne  1903,  ovraignes  :  enseignes  2095,  Best, 
enseigne :  remaigne  1571,  montaigne  :  enseigne  2817.  In  the 
Clef  d’ Amours  finally  we  note  aigne  pure  1437,  eigne  pure 
2847  and  ouvrengne  :  ensengne  2061,  compaignes  :  enseignes 
3133.  That  is  to  say,  we  have  in  these  texts,  taken  as  a 
whole,  a  majority  of  aigne  rimes,  due  to  conditions  which 
throw  no  light  on  the  pronunciation,  a  very  much  smaller 
number  of  eigne  rimes,  and  constant  examples  of  fusion 
between  the  two,  showing  that  their  pronunciation  was 
identical. 

We  may  now  cite  the  rimes  in  these  texts  which  aid  in 
determining  the  pronunciation.  These  are  in  the  first  place 
regne  iplaigne,  Eneas  1427,  regne  :  peine,  ibid.  2523,  preigne 
(*prendeam)  :f eigne,  Marie  de  France,  Lanval  131,  pleig- 

1  In  view  of  this  fact  fange  :  enseigne  3801  and  enseigne  :  bamage  4109  must 
be  looked  upon  as  doubtful  readings  ;  cp.  also  Muret,  ed.,  p.  xliv. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


671 


nent  :  blosteignent,  ibid.  Fables  23—25,  entracompaignent  : 
espraignent ,  Best.  2903.  These  must  be  considered  in  con¬ 
nection  with  certain  rime  pairs  in  Benoit  de  Sainte-More. 
In  both  poems  commonly  attributed  to  this  author  the 
commonest  rimes  are  aigne  :  aigne ,  eigne  :  eigne  and  aigne  : 
eigne,  but  in  addition  there  are  found  a  few  in  aigne  or  eigne 
with  iegne  as  follows:  teigne  :  remaigne,  R.  Troie  12985, 
teigne  :  chastaigne ,  ibid.  16851,  teigne  :  enseigne,  ibid.  18407, 
teigne  imaigne,  B.  Chron.  17557,  and  also  aigne  :  *prendeam 
as  ovraigne  ipreigne ,  B.  Chron.  19475,  compaigne  :  empr eigne, 
ibid.  22601.  That  is  to  say  we  have  here  more  extended 
evidence  of  a  rime  tendency  just  noted  for  Wace’s  Brut  and 
Marie  de  France.  The  Clef  d’ Amours  points  in  the  same 
direction  with  plengne  :  tiengne  613,  ensengne  :  eontiengne 
2737,  prengnes  :  restraingnes  401,  and  prenge  :  avienge  1143, 
contingent :  mesprengent  2067,  prenge :  retienge  2083,  aprenges : 
contienges  2899,  which  are  probably  only  variant  spellings  for 
the  same  phonetic  value. 

Presumably  this  value  was  ene,  but  of  course  the  rimes 
themselves  contain  no  evidence  and  it  is  quite  conceivable 
that  teneam  and  *prendeam  were  pronounced  tane  and 
prdhe.  There  is,  however,  another  set  of  rimes  in  Benoit 
showing  mixture  of  aigne  and  eigne,  with  aine  and  cine , 
similar  to  those  already  noted  for  the  earlier  Anglo-Norman 
texts,  and  these  throw  very  definite  light  on  our  problem ; 
cp.  Seigne  (Sequana)  :  Bretaigne,  B.  Chron.  15044,  Seigne  : 
compaigne,  ibid.  39751,  chevetaingne  :  conpainane,  R.  Troie 
20419,  Heleine  :  chevetaingne,  ibid.  25863,  estreine  :  Heleine, 
ibid.  5069.  Whatever  vowel  existed  in  aine  or  eine  must 
have  been  heard  also  in  aigne  and  eigne,  and  since  this 
tended  in  the  direction  of  ene,  cp.  above,  p.  651,  it  follows 
that  aigne  and  eigne  were  sounded  ehe,  and  the  rime  regne  : 
plaigne ,  Eneas  1427  agrees  with  this  inference. 

We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  in  the  Anglo-Norman 


672 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


and  Norman  dialects  both  aigne  and  eigne  were  pronounced 
ene,  *prendeam  was  prene  and  teneam,  veniam  had 
become  tiene,  viene  with  further  development  into  tene  and 
vene. 

In  our  study  of  the  history  of  ain  and  ein,  after  the 
determination  of  the  value  of  these  syllables  in  Anglo- 
Norman  and  Norman,  we  were  led  through  the  Escoufle  and 
Guillaume  de  Dole  into  a  series  of  texts  where  these  syllables 
rime  with  oin.  Only  Rutebuef  of  our  list  shows  the  similar 
mixture  of  aigne  and  eigne  with  oigne.  Since  the  latter  was 
pronounced  oene,  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  value 
of  the  former.  Note  the  following  rimes  :  remeigne  :  enseigne , 

I— 71,  remeigne  :pr eigne,  i— 71,  pr eigne  :  deigne ,  1-150,  main- 
teingne  :  veingne  :  compeingne  :  esloigne ,  I— 22,  poingne  :  so- 
vrainne  :  moinne  :  essoinne ,  1-163,  avaloingnes  :  lontaingnes  : 
essoingnes ,  1—241,  enseigne  :  besoingne ,  II-85,  ouvraingne  : 
vergoingne,  n-176,  coviegne  :  besoingne ,  n-184,  souviegne  : 
besoingne,  ii— 294,  doingne  :  viengne,  II-376,  praingne  :  be¬ 
soingne,  II-311.  Since  regnum,  written  raine,  r aigne,  or 
rlgne,  rimes  with  this  same  class  of  words,  cp.  1-101,  127, 

II— 90,  206,  254,  283,  365,  it  follows  that  all  were  pro¬ 
nounced  alike.1 

The  same  fusion  of  the  syllables  in  question  with  oigne  is 
to  be  found  in  the  list  of  assonances  from  Gaufrey,  p.  316, 
already  cited  in  part  above,  p.  655.  To  the  words  mentioned 

1  Metzke,  Herrig ’  s  Archiv,  lxv,  p.  60,  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
proper  names  like  Champaingne  Alemaingne  in  the  Francian  documents 
studied  by  him  are  never  written  with  e  or  ei,  and  that  forms  like  Cham¬ 
pagne,  montagne  are  not  infrequent.  This  leads  him  to  accept  the  modern 
pronunciation  for  the  words  in  question.  But  the  rimes  which  he  cites 
from  Geffroi  de  Paris  and  Gautier  de  Coincy,  in  addition  to  those  from 
Rutebuef  and  other  authors  included  in  the  present  study,  show  such 
absolute  equivalence  of  aigne  and  eigne,  that  it  follows  that  their  value 
must  have  been  identical,  and  in  a  note  on  p.  62  he  hesitatingly  withdraws 
his  previous  conclusion. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


673 


there,  add  demaine  :  compegne  :  essoigne  :  ensengne  :  castengne  : 
Couloigne  :  Sessoigne  :  grifaingne  :  Espengne  :  vergoigne  :  com- 
pengne  :  gaaigne  :  entente  :  jenne  (  =jeune )  :  essoigne  :  quaran¬ 
tine  :  besongne  :  demouraine . 

The  earliest  texts  ascribed  by  Suchier,  Altfrz.  Gram., 
pp.  2—3,  to  this  region  cannot  enter  into  the  argument. 
The  Vie  de  Saint  Thomas  has  no  rimes  in  point,  and  Marie 
de  France,  as  we  have  seen,  scarcely  has  either  syllable  at 
the  end  of  the  line.  The  still  earlier  texts,  as  the  Voyage 
Chari,  and  the  Couron.  Louis,  show  only  aigne  in  assonance 
with  a ;  cp.  Charlemaignes  :  compaignes  :  France  :  remaignet : 
plaigne,  Voy.  Chari.  783,  Charlemaigne  :Alemaigne  :  Bretaigne  : 
reiames  :  France,  Couron.  Louis  10,  a  fact  to  be  expected 
from  the  age  of  these  poems.  That  neither  should  contain 
an  assonance  showing  eigne :  e  is  probably  to  be  explained 
in  a  similar  way  as  the  relative  proportion  of  aigne  and  eigne 
rimes  in  the  later  texts. 

If  we  now  look  at  the  texts  cited  above,  pp.  656  ff.,  in 
which  evidence  for  the  value  of  en  =  ain  and  ein  can  be 
found,  we  shall  be  able  to  observe  some  rather  definite  criteria 
for  our  problem  in  the  case  of  some  of  them,  while  we  shall 
find  a  great  deal  of  obscurity  in  the  case  of  others.  Maistre 
Elie  in  his  Art  d’ Amour  rimes  aigne: eigne  and  *prendeam  ; 
cp.  remaigne  :  ensaigne  856,  compaigne  :  preigne  370,  gre- 
vaigne  :  peine  737,  ensaing  :  desdaing  785.  The  author  of 
the  Escoufle  joins  saigne  (signat)  :  montaigne  5089,  plaigne 
(planea)  :  prengne  1125,  daigne  iprengne  7839,  compaigne  : 
aviegne  5277,  remaingne  :  aviengne  1675,  remaigne  :  raigne 
(regnum)  2221 ,  Loheraigne  :  raigne  5477,  i.  e.,  aigne,  eigne, 
cgne,  iegne  and  regnum  rime  in  such  a  way  that  the  conclu¬ 
sion  is  obligatory  that  all  were  pronounced  alike  either  ahe 
or  ehe.  Now  in  this  same  text  ain  and  ein  are  probably  en, 
cp.  above,  p.  655,  and  since  losenge,  which  rimes  with  vos 
ain  ge  2877,  is  coupled  with  aveigne  7459,  we  are  justified 


674 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


in  accepting  ene  as  the  pronunciation  of  the  author.  Guil¬ 
laume  de  Dole ,  which  furnishes  the  earliest  example  of  the 
fusion  of  ain  with  oin  rimes  plaigne  :  Alemaigne  3771,  5562, 
enmainent  :  remaignent  4085,  and  Champaigne  :  apregne  5, 
regne  :  graine  7,  regne  :  deerraine  4134.  The  remaining 
rimes  in  point  have  a  as  tonic  vowel,  as  11.  972,  1084,  1654, 
2560,  3068,  3542,  or  e  as  3582.  If  aine  is  correctly  de¬ 
termined  as  eine,  then  regne  must  be  rene  or  rene  and  aigne 
was  pronounced  ene  as  is  proved  by  the  filiation  of  regne  : 
aine  :  eine  :  aigne . 

The  R.  Rose  also  joined  ain  and  oin.  Here  we  find 
aigne  :  eigne  ( Bretaigne  :  enseigne ,  1-39),  aigne  :  iegne  (com- 
paigne  :  tiengne ,  i-9),  eigne  :  iegne  ( enseigne  :  tiengne ,  I—  68), 
aigne  :  *prendeam  (refr  aigne  :  sorpr eigne ,  i— 101,  prengne  : 
chastengne ,  H— 215),  eigne  :  *prendeam  (pr eigne  :  feingne, 

I- 321,  prengne  ifaingne ,  n-129).  Since  saine  rimes  with 
essoine ,  i— 73,  and  poine  with  moine  (monachus),  i— 100,  we 
may  accept  vaine  :  raine  (regnum),  i-l  5  as  meaning  vene  : 
rene ,  and  we  may  infer  that  aigne  and  eigne  were  pro¬ 
nounced  ene.  In  support  of  this  conclusion  we  may  cite 
also  lointaignes  :  taignes  (teneas),  i-59,  lointaingne  :  tiengne , 

II- 216,  and  Loheregne  :  regne ,  I— 25. 

The  Miracles  de  Nostre  Dame  show  maines  :  enseignes , 

xii—  580,  montaigne  :  ensaingne,  xx-449,  Bretaingne  :  re- 
teingne,  xvn-883,  deigne  :  veigne ,  ix-20,  deigne  :  esconveigne, 

xiii- 408,  viengne  :  enseigne ,  xxi— 535,  xxii-1397,  aprengne  : 
tiengne ,  yi-392,  appartiengne  :  mesprengne,  viii-1138.  One 
rime,  compaigne  :  espargne,  m-1079,  seems  indeed  to  speak 
for  the  pronunciation  ane,  but  Charles  d’  Orleans  has  espergne  : 
pr eigne  :  enseigne  :  apr eigne,  II-85  showing  the  correct  form. 
For  similar  evidence  cp.  espergne  :  Auverne ,  B.  Chron.  5039, 
espergne  :  cerne ,  ibid.  16258,  taverne  :  espergne ,  R.  Rose, 
1-168,  esparne  :  superne,  Besant  Dieu  3167,  and  even  as  late 
as  Marot  we  can  find  espergne  :  Auvergne ,  n-14. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


675 


The  remaining  texts 1  of  this  list  present  the  following 
examples : 

Eustache  Deschamps  —  paine  :  aviengne  :  empraigne  : 
aviengne,  I-XVI,  montaigne :  souspraingne,  I— lxxxii,  aviengne : 
plaingne  :  demaine  :  maine  and  empraingne  :  souvieingne  : 
praingne  :  incertaine,  I— cn,  aviengne  :  Bretaingne  :  souviengne  : 
reprangne,  I— CLVii,  foraine  :  Bretaigne,  n— cxcii,  reviengne  : 
repraingne  :  maintiengne  :  enseigne ,  ii-ccxlviii,  layne  : 
apprengne  :  ensaigne  :  craingne  :  aviengne ,  II— CCCY. 

Guillaume  Alexis — Espaigne  :  peigne,  Le  a  b  c  des  Doubles 
485,  attaine  (==atteigne)  :  hayne ,  Basse  Temps  de  tout  Homme 
et  de  toute  Femme  2897,  montaigne  :  enseigne ,  ibid.  3535, 
pr eigne  :  appartiengne ,  ibid.  3703,  daigne  :  baigne,  ibid. 
4323. 

Villon — Auvergne  :  Charlemaigne,  Grant  Test.  382,  Bre¬ 
taigne  :  enseigne :  tiengne ,  ibid.  1629,  paine :  attaine  (=  atteigne ), 
Poes.  Div.  190,  douzaine  :  Estienne  :  paine  :  sepmaine ,  Grant 
Test.  1913,  Boyne  (=  rogne)  :  paine,  ibid.  1151,  Roynes  : 
regnes  :  Renes  :  estrenes,  ibid.  414. 

Marot — Only  contraignent :  preignent,  1-146,  and  daigne  : 
enseigne \preigne :  appreigne,  n-47,  Epigram  cxxn,  Espaigne  : 
baigne,  1-259,  345,  montaigne  :  baigne,  1-470,  485,  n-165, 
baigne  :  gaigne,  II-152  show  the  older  tradition.  Most  of 
the  rimes  in  point  agree  with  the  modern  pronunciation  as 

1  Christine  de  Pisan’s  rimes  are  very  unsatisfactory  in  this  connection. 
The  following  list  includes  all  those  of  interest,  and  no  conclusions  can  be 
based  upon  them.  The  volumes  examined  contain  no  eigne  rimes  what¬ 
ever,  and  no  fusion  of  aigne  :  eigne.  All  rimes  in  point  are  exceedingly 
rare  ;  cp.  Alemagne  :  remagne ,  Livre  du  Due  des  Vrais  Amants  717,  remaigne  : 
Alemaigne ,  ibid.  1709,  mahagnent  :  empregnent ,  Epistre  au  Dieu  d}  Amours 
645,  prengne  :  Bretaigne  :  compaigne  :  Alemaigne,  Debat  de  Deux  Amans  1552. 
Nyrop,  Gram.  Hist.,  i,  p.  196,  cites  Bretaigne :  empr eigne,  Cheminde  l.  Estude 
3695.  I  may  add  here,  because  of  similar  interest  and  limited  scope, 
enseing  :  repreing,  Guiot  de  Provins,  Bible,  1440,  praingne  :  Champaigne, 
Crieries  de  Paris,  39,  souvienne  :  preingne,  Mist,  du  Viel  Testament  1168, 
advienne  :  preingne,  ibid.  3338. 


676 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


campaigne  :  Espaigne ,  1-63,  and  1-117,  153,  195,  197,  232, 
434  and  enseigne  :  enseigne  :  contraigne,  1-82  and  125,  178. 

The  material  presented  in  the  preceding  pages  lacks  without 
question  here  and  there  the  precision  that  one  would  like  to 
see  in  an  argument  of  this  kind.  However,  no  other  criteria 
are  available.  The  answer  to  this  vexing  question  must  be 
sought  in  the  rimes,  and  from  the  nature  of  things  their 
meaning  must  be  unraveled  with  care,  and  certainly  without 
prejudice.  This  we  have  endeavored  to  do.  We  have 
shown  that  in  the  Norman  dialect  aigne  and  eigne  must 
have  had  the  value  of  ene.  Passing  into  the  Francian,  we 
have  found  evidence  of  the  same  pronunciation  through  the 
mingling  of  these  syllables  with  oigne ,  while  at  the  same 
time  they  rimed  with  iegne  and  *prendeam.  Then  we 
have  seen  oigne  disappearing  from  this  group,  but  we  have 
noticed  the  others  holding  together  until  Marot’s  time.  The 
rimes  cited  from  Eustache  Deschamps,  Guillaume  Alexis, 
and  Villon  show  aine  and  eine  mixed  with  them  besides,  and 
we  have  seen  these  latter  in  a  previous  chapter  definitely 
used  with  the  value  of  ene.  The  conclusion  which  is  forced 
upon  us  is  inevitable.  From  the  end  of  the  12th  century 
until  the  time  of  Marot  aigne  and  eigne  in  the  Francian 
dialect  both  had  the  identical  value  of  ene.  There  now 
remains  the  problem  how  the  modern  readjustment  of  these 
syllables  into  ane  and  gne  is  to  be  explained. 


V. 


Before  taking  up  the  consideration  of  this  question  we 
may  study  the  history  of  aigne  and  eigne  in  the  region  where 
ain  and  ein  had  the  value  of  an.  Engelmann,  l.  c.,  pp.  22— 
23,  cites  a  few  assonances  showing  the  value  of  ane  for  both 
syllables.  These  are  lances  :  ensaignes  :  grif aigne  :  France , 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


677 


Charrois  de  Nimes  975  ;  estrange  :  demande  :  regne  :  France  : 
Alemaigne ,  Prise  d’Orenge  179.  We  may  add  porpensent : 
Losane  :  Bretaigne  :  prendre  :  lance ,  Aiol,  ccxxii ;  descendre  : 
ensengne  :  Franche  :  Losane  :  Charlemaine  ipendre  :feme,  ibid . 
ccxxv ;  chatainne  :  demande  :  mainnes  :  France ,  Amt's  et 
Amiles  517  ;  chatainnes  :  Charlemainne  :  estraingnes  :  entrenty 
ibid.  2042  ;  demorance  :  montaingne  :  lance  y  Jourdains  de 
Blaivies  1646. 

The  rimed  texts  present  no  similar  evidence.  The  rime 
bangne  :  espargne ,  Jacques  de  Baisieux,  Trois  Chev.  247  is  of 
interest  mainly  on  account  of  the  orthography  of  the  first 
word,  but  the  rime  itself  is  not  entirely  above  suspicion  since 
espargne  might  be  a  graphic  variant  for  espergne,  though  this 
is  scarcely  probable  in  this  dialect.  Demanois  :  espaignois , 
Chev.  as  deus  espees  2767,  is  also  striking  for  the  same  reason. 
The  second  word  is  espanois  <  hispanensis,  and  the  sylla¬ 
ble  an  could  be  written  aign  only  by  a  scribe  for  whom 
aign  meant  ah. 

Nor  will  the  words  with  which  aigne  and  eigne  are 
coupled  in  rime  serve  to  throw  light  on  the  problem.  We 
find  here,  as  before,  iegne  and  *prendeam.  Only  regnum 
seems  absent  and  limited  to  rimes  with  aine  and  eine.  Not 
all  the  texts,  however,  join  all  these  syllables.  All  four, 
aigne  :  eigne  :  iegne  :  *prendeam,  are  found  in  Ille  et  Galeron , 
Guillaume  de  Palerne ,  Richars  li  Biaus  and  Philippe  de  Beau- 
manoir ;  aigne  :  eigne  :  *prendeam  rime  in  the  Chevalier  as 
deus  Espees  and  the  Roman  de  Galeran ;  and  aigne  :  eigne 
only  are  coupled  in  Durmart ,  Robert  le  Liable  and  Froissart's 
Meliador.  I  do  not  add  examples  here  to  illustrate  the 
nature  of  these  rimes.  A  few  specimens  of  each  type  could 
give  no  idea  of  the  actual  exclusion  of  the  others  and  their 
general  appearance  will  become  sufficiently  clear  from  the 
citations  given  for  another  purpose  below. 

It  follows  that  we  have  the  same  groups  of  rime  words  to 


678 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


deal  with  as  before,  and  the  question  of  their  pronunciation 
cannot  be  solved  with  the  evidence  which  they  contain.  The 
only  remaining  avenue  of  approach  is  the  orthography.  We 
are  aware,  of  course,  of  the  care  that  must  be  exercised  in 
basing  an  argument  on  such  data.  Yet  certain  ortho¬ 
graphic  habits  can  be  observed  in  these  texts  which  are 
incompatible  with  the  pronunciation  ene. 

1.  Eigne ,  iegne ,  and  *prendeam  are  constantly  written 
aigne.  Cf.  entresaigne  :  baigne ,  Ille  et  Galeron ,  568,  Bre- 
taigne :  taigne  (=  tienne ),  ibid.  305,  ouvragne :  vaigne  (=  vienne ), 
Baudoin  de  Conde,  xxi— 503,  empraignent :  espaignent,  Guill. 
de  Palerne  9199,  convaigne :  compaigne,  ibid.  5201,  con- 
paigne  :  ensaigne ,  Robert  le  Diable  3115,  chaigne  (=cingat)  : 
deschaigne,  Chev.  as  deus  Esp.  781,  Bretaigne  :  pr aigne,  Gale- 
ran  1620,  pr  aigne :  remaigne,  Manehine  449,  vaigne  (—  vienne )  : 
remaigne,  ibid.  2069.  A  complete  list  of  the  available  ex¬ 
amples  would  serve  no  purpose,  for  it  would  fail  to  give 
an  idea  of  the  proportion  of  aigne  outside  of  the  rime  in 
comparison  with  the  other  ways  of  spelling  the  syllable,  but 
the  constant  recurrence  of  the  aigne  form  in  these  texts  com¬ 
pared  with  its  more  restricted  employment  in  the  ene  group, 
gives  it  nevertheless  the  force  of  a  valuable  argument  at  least 
for  the  speech  of  the  scribes  who  copied  the  manuscripts. 

2.  The  parasitic  i  is  often  and  in  some  texts  quite  regu¬ 
larly  omitted.  Cf.  Bretagne  :  adagne,  Ille  et  Galeron  1683, 
remagne  :  Alemagne,  ibid.  2663,  dagne :  ensagne,  ibid.  382, 
desdang  :  faing,  ibid.  5407,  engagne  :  gaagne,  Rich,  li  Biaus 
4189,  Espagne  :  compagne ,  ibid.  4899,  Bretagne  :  estragne 
Meliador  2776. 

3.  Eigne  and  *prendeam  are  written  egne  and  engne. 
Cf.  ensengne  :  estr aigne,  Rich,  li  Biaus,  3887,  pregne  :  com¬ 
paigne,  Ille  et  Galeron  4803,  adengne  :  daingne,  Jean  de 
Conde,  xxxv-13,  ensengne  :  mehangne,  Jacques  de  Baisieux, 
V  lettres  de  Marie  195,  plaingne  :  pr  engne,  Guill.  de.  PaL 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


679 


6697,  ensenges :  montaignes,  Rob.  le  Diablc  637,  1809,  en- 
senges  :  estranges ,  ibid.  899,  ensegne  :  estraigne ,  ibid.  2853, 
ensengne  :  Bretagne ,  Meliador  6799,  ensengne  :  acompagne , 
ibid.  7125. 

4.  These  syllables  rime  with  aine  =  ane.  Cf.  plaine : 
ensenge ,  Rob.  le  Diable  2347,  fontaine  :  plaine  (planea),  ibid. 
2351,  Charlemainne  :  painne,  Rich,  li  Biaus  15,  vaingne: 
fontainne ,  ibid.  1253,  plainnes  (plenas)  :  compaingnes,  ibid. 
4529,  amainne  :  Espaingne ,  ibid.  4769,  maine  :  remaigne , 
Chev.  as  deus  Esp.  2293,  deschaine  :  remaigne ,  ibid.  1461. 

5.  Extraneus  appears  as  estrange  and  estragne.  Cf. 
estranges :  blanges  (verbal  noun  from  blangier ),  Rob.  le  Diable 
4383,  ensengnes  :  estranges ,  ibid.  899,  2123,  ensegne :  estraigne, 
ibid.  2853,  ensengne :  estraigne,  Rich,  li  Biaus  3887,  com- 
paigne  :  estrange,  Durmart  3123,  Montaigne :  estraigne,  ibid. 
5353.  Such  rimes  are  incompatible  with  the  pronunciation 
ene. 

While  these  points  could  not  in  themselves  serve  as  final 
arguments  for  the  pronunciation,  yet  taken  together  they 
contain  a  certain  cumulative  force,  which  points  to  the  value 
ane  for  the  texts  in  question,  but  the  nature  of  the  material 
on  hand  does  not  permit  us  to  draw  more  definite  conclusions. 

We  refrain  from  undertaking  to  determine  the  geographi¬ 
cal  limits  of  this  phenomenon.  The  material  for  this 
investigation  is  here  even  less  satisfactory  than  in  the  case  of 
ain  and  ein.  We  may  admit  that  it  included  Champagne. 
Chrestien  de  Troie  rimes  aigne  :  eigne  :  iegne  :  *prendeam. 
Cp.  Bretaigne  :  ansaingne,  Yvain  1,  remaingne  :  praingne, 
Cliges  2553,  ansaigne  :  apraingne,  Yvain  4957,  desdaing  : 
praing,  Erec  4025.  For  aigne  :  iegne  there  exists  only  the 
isolated  rime  ptaingne  :  vaingne,  Cliges  3077.  Usually  iegne 
written  aingne  is  kept  distinct.  Gace  Brul6  rimes  only 
aigne  :  eigne  :  *prendeam.  Cp.  plaigne  :  ensaigne,  viii-18, 
apr aigne  :  remaigne,  viii-26,  adaigne  :  apr aigne,  xvii-32. 

11 


680 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


However,  Burgundy,  as  in  the  case  of  ain  and  ein ,  did 
not  share  in  this  development.  The  Lyon  Yzopet  has  oigne 
for  eigne ,  while  aigne  has  remained ;  cp.  compaigne :  deplaigne 
503,  aplaigne  :  acompaigne  859,  complaignent  :  raignent 
(regnant)  1121,  and  ensoigne  :  proigne  (*prendeat)  319, 
1417,  besoigne :  ensoigne  529,  3007,  doigne  (dignat)  :  ver- 
g oigne  999,  ensoigne  :cy oigne  1165,  enproigne  :  ensoigne  3387, 
besoigne  :  doigne  3505.  There  is  no  example  of  fusion  of 
aigne  :  eigne  >  oigne.  The  material,  collected  by  Gorlich, 
Burgund.  Dial.,  pp.  34  and  63,  shows  that  these  examples 
represent  the  general  habit  of  this  region.  Aigne  is  written 
aine,  ayne,  eigne,  egne,  enne,  very  rarely  oigne,  and  eigne  be¬ 
comes  usually  oigne,  though  there  is  occasional  interchange 
with  the  former  group  in  the  orthography. 

The  Estoire  de  La  Guerre  Sainte,  which  on  the  basis  of 
its  development  of  ain  and  ein  we  were  inclined  to  place  with 
R.  Troie  and  B.  Chron.,  agrees  with  this  same  group  of  texts 
for  aigne  and  eigne.  As  in  the  R.  Rou  the  majority  of  rimes 
in  point  show  aigne;  cp.  99,  347,  995,  etc.,  in  all  42  rimes. 
There  is  one  pure  eigne  rime,  1.  6225,  regne  rimes  with 
Charlemaine  8479,  and  with  cheveitaigne  8607,  and  we  must 
cite  besides  the  isolated  empraine  (impregnat)  :  enpraine 
(*imprendeat)  1.  5.  With  this  enumeration  the  evidence  for 
the  pronunciation  of  our  syllables  in  this  text  is  exhausted, 
and  we  believe  it  should  be  joined  to  the  rimes  of  the  Nor¬ 
man  texts  in  general,  and  interpreted  together  with  them. 

VI. 

We  may  now  endeavor  to  explain  the  difference  in  the 
modern  pronunciation  of  montagne,  chdtaigne,  enseigne  and 
the  like.  From  the  preceding  pages  it  has  become  evident 
that  not  one  of  the  long  list  of  texts,  Marot  included,  makes 
use  of  the  syllables  aigne  and  eigne  with  their  modern  value. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


681 


Both  rime  without  distinction  during  the  whole  of  the  Old 
French  period  and  were  pronounced  either  ene  or  ane,  depend¬ 
ing  upon  the  dialect  to  which  the  text  belongs.  Bearing  this 
fact  in  mind,  we  may  examine  the  history  of  a  and  e  +  n 
as  outlined  in  the  Grammars. 

According  to  Behrens1  a  parasitic  i  developed  before  n 
when  it  was  final  or  followed  by  a  consonant,  but  not  when 
it  stood  in  medial  position,  so  that  we  shouldMiave  compaing , 
b ciing,  enseint,  but  compagne ,  bagne,  ensegne.  The  i,  which 
so  constantly  appears  also  in  the  second  group  of  words,  is 
looked  upon  as  merely  graphic.  It  is  evident  that  this 
explanation  is  intended  to  suit  the  modern  form  of  the 
words  in  question  ;  for  if  it  is  correct,  bain,  gain,  refrain  are 
regular  as  well  as  gagner,  Bretagne,  Allemagne,  montagne, 
while  baigner,  plaignons,  craignons,  and  the  like  can  find  a 
ready  explanation  on  the  basis  of  analogy.  However,  it  is 
overlooked  that  then  araigne,  musaraigne  and  chdtaigne  are 
not  provided  for,  and  that  the  rule  does  not  explain  the 
constant  union  of  a  -j-  n  and  e  -j-  n  in  rime  in  Old  French. 
The  further  assumed  difference  between  a  or  e  -f-  final  n  and 
a  or  e  -f  medial  n  it  is  difficult  to  test,  since  the  i  before  n  is 
usually  written  in  either  position.  Where  it  is  absent  before 
the  medial  n,  it  may  also  disappear  before  the  same  sound  in 
final  position,  as  desdang  :  faing,  Ille  et  Galeron  5407,  song  : 
beson,  ibid.  5780,  though  it  is  true  that  such  examples  are 
rather  rare,  and  ordinarily  the  i  is  written  before  final  n, 
even  where  it  is  absent  in  the  medial  position. 

Suchier’s  explanation 2  differs  fundamentally  from  the 
preceding.  He  maintains  that  in  the  Francian  dialect  n 
developed  a  parasitic  i  before  it  when  it  preceded  the  accent 
as  in  plaignons ,  joignons,  Bourguignon.  The  diphthong 

1  Schwan-Behrens,  Altfrz.  Gram.,  §  203. 

2Altfrz.  Gram.,  p.  72. 


682 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


created  in  this  way  could  enter  the  tonic  syllable  (baigne), 
and  this  happened  particularly  often  in  the  case  of  ei.  This 
new  diphthong  ei  then  shared  in  the  common  development 
of  ei  >  di  toward  the  middle  of  the  12th  century.  As 
earliest  example  of  this  development  he  cites  ensaignet , 
Mont.  Ps.  17-37. 

The  evidence  presented  in  this  study  precludes  in  my 
opinion  the  possibility  of  accepting  this  explanation  of  the 
problem.  There  is  no  proof  that  in  the  Norman  and  Anglo- 
Norman  dialect  ein  and  eign  developed  in  the  direction  of 
din  and  din ;  on  the  contrary,  all  the  evidence  available 
points  strongly  to  the  conclusion  that  ain  and  aign  became 
ein  and  ein.  If  this  be  so,  ensaignet  in  the  Mont.  Ps.  can 
only  be  the  earliest  evidence  of  the  graphic  confusion  caused 
by  the  coincidence  of  the  two  sounds.  Furthermore  one  is 
tempted  to  ask  how  Suchier  would  prove  that  accented  a 
and  e  followed  by  n  become  an  and  en,  while  pretonic  a 
and  e  -f-  n  developed  into  din  and  ein.  Certainly  the  ortho¬ 
graphy  of  the  Mont.  Ps .,  the  Carnb.  Ps.,  and  the  Q.  L.  D.  P. 
permits  of  no  such  conclusion,  for  in  these  texts  n  appears  as 
ign  or  gn  in  all  positions,  regardless  of  the  accent,  and  the 
rimed  texts  give  no  evidence  for  the  unaccented  syllables. 

If  eigne  toward  the  middle  of  the  12th  century  became 
aigne,  it  would  have  to  be  shown  in  the  next  place  when  and 
where  the  modern  readjustment  of  the  pronunciation  of  these 
syllables  was  effected,  and  how  eigne  =  afie  changed  back 
to  ene  again,  while  aigne  =  dne  retained  its  Old  French  value. 
We  have  seen  that  no  evidence  of  such  a  division  is  visible  in 
the  Old  French  texts.  As  far  as  the  rimes  are  concerned, 
both  syllables  are  identical  in  all  words  of  this  group  from  the 
end  of  the  12th  century  until  Marot’s  time.  The  pronuncia¬ 
tion  of  both  developed  in  a  uniform  direction  during  the 
whole  of  this  period,  and  the  conclusion  which  we  have 
reached  is  the  only  one  justified  by  the  evidence  before  us. 


AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS. 


683 


This  value  of  ene  for  both  aigne  and  eigne  was  slow  to 
disappear.  Malherbe  still  rimes  compagne :  dedaigne  ( Larmes 
de  Saint-Pierre) )  Tabouret1  in  1584  states  that  of  the  words 
in  eigne  (la  pluspart  peuvent  rimer  avec  aigne’,  and  Lanoue2 
in  1595  reiterates  ‘  ces  deux  terminaisons  n’ont  qu’une  pronon- 
tiation’ 

Yet  there  is  evidence  that  the  modern  pronunciation  was 
becoming  established  during  this  same  period.  Meigret3 
writes  accompany,  anyao  (agneau),  montafies,  Qharlemane, 
Champane ,  Hespanol,  Montanart,  Hespane,  accompanant, 
only  once  accompaine  and  plenet  { plaignent )  for  words  with 
Latin  a,  and  dedenans,  crenans,  crenet  (craignent),  crenez 
(craignez),  penons  { peignons ),  ensene  { enseigne ),  ensene  for 
words  with  Latin  e.  Baif 4  has  gai)era  { gagnera ),  montage, 
garner,  honpai )’  {compagne),  akonpai]eront  but  eqecos  (agneaux), 
%i)el%s  {agnelets)  and  beiqera  {baignera),  deir)a  {daigna), 
anseii)ement  {enseigne ment),  answer  {enseigner),  anseii)e,  deir^e 
{daigne),  and  many  other  examples  equally  regular  from  the 
modern  point  of  view. 

Among  the  various  influences  which  must  have  been 
potent  in  establishing  the  modern  pronunciation  we  may 
mention  in  the  first  place  that  of  the  orthography.  Though 
aigne  was  pronounced  ene,  yet  the  orthography  to  a  very 
large  extent  had  retained  aigne,  though  it  is  true,  as  has 
been  shown,  that  eigne  is  very  frequently  used  in  its  place. 
The  written  form  aigne  might  cause  a  certain  hesitation  as  to 
the  proper  pronunciation  of  the  syllable.  The  i  might  have 
been  looked  upon  as  belonging  to  gn,  and  just  as  aiile  was 
pronounced  al'e  so  it  might  have  been  felt  that  aigne  should 
be  pronounced  ane.  That  this  sort  of  reasoning  actually  did 

1  Thurot,  l.  c.,  I,  p.  330.  2Thurot,  ibid. 

3  Meigret,  Le  Trette  de  la  Grammere  Frangoeze,  published  by  Forster, 

Heilbronn,  1888. 

4  Jean  Antoine  de  Bail’s  Psaultier,  published  by  Groth,  Heilbronn,  1888. 


684 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


take  place  seems  to  follow  from  the  statement  of  Palliot 
(1608)  cited  by  Thurot,  1.  c.,  I,  p.  330.  ‘  Je  sgay  bien 

qu’il  y  a  des  diphthongues  quil  vauldroit  mieux  laisser  et 
n’en  retenir  que  la  premiere  voyelle  plnstost  que  de  les 
6crire  ny  proferer  :  tant  il  s?y  donne  un  mauuois  air  par  des 
mal-embouchez  et  mauplaisants  prononceurs.  Comme  celle 
d ’ai  en  Bretaigne ,  montaigne ,  Champaigne ,  aigneau:  ou  ils 
semblent  avoir  le  mords  trops  serr6  et  se  gourmer  par  trop, 
a  en  faire  la  petite  bouche,  les  pronongantz  en  ei,  eigneau, 
Breteigne,  monteigne ,  Champeigne .’ 

In  the  next  place  it  is  certain  that  during  the  period  of 
reconstruction,  when  the  Old  French  changed  to  the  modern 
language,  the  larger  portion  of  the  words  in  aigne  fell  into 
disuse.  Only  a  fraction  of  the  Old  French  rime  words  in 
aigne  :  eigne  has  passed  into  the  modern  vocabulary.  Of 
those  which  remained  a  certain  number  readily  suggested  the 
Latin  word  from  which  they  derived,  as  Allemagne ,  Charle¬ 
magne ,  Romagne,  Espagne ,  Bretagne .  The  Latin  influence 
which  pervaded  the  language  at  that  time  could  without 
difficulty  re-establish  the  original  vowel  in  these  words. 

Other  words  with  similar  ending  were  introduced  at  that 
time  from  the  Italian  or  the  Spanish,  as  campagne  <  Italian 
campagna ,  pagne  <  Spanish  pano.  Both  words  are  inter¬ 
esting  for  their  form.  The  former  occurs  first  in  Marot,  cp. 
Diet.  G&n.  s.  v.,  the  first  instance  of  the  latter  is  found  in  the 
correspondence  of  the  Pere  Nacquard  in  1650,  cp.  ibid.  s.  v. 
In  both  cases  the  influence  of  the  traditional  orthography  is 
so  strong  that  they  are  written  campaigne  and  paigne. 

Still  other  words  were  influenced  by  their  Italian,  Spanish, 
or  Provengal  cognates.  So  quoquaigne 1  becomes  cocagne 

1  The  word  is  quite  rare  in  Old  French  literature.  Godefroy  cites  it,  ii, 
p.  164,  from  Aimery  de  Narbonne  ( :  remaigne )  and  the  Enf.  Ogier  ( :  engaigne). 
Two  other  references  can  be  found  in  vol.  ix,  Suppl.  s.  v.,  both  in  rime 


e 


^  AI  AND  El  IN  FRENCH  BEFORE  NASALS.  685 

under  the  influence  of  Italian  cuccagna ;  champaigne  changes 
to  champagne  under  the  influence  of  It.  campagna,  Sp.  cam- 
pana ,  Prov.  campanha ;  compaigne  is  affected  by  It.  com- 
pagna,  Sp.  compaha,  Prov.  companha  in  spite  of  the  different 
gender,  and  Old  French  gaigner  loses  its  i  through  association 
with  It.  guadagnare ,  in  spite  of  the  noun  gain  ;  and  from 
these  simple  words  the  new  pronunciation  finds  its  way 
readily  into  the  derivatives,  so  that  we  have  compagnie ,  com- 
pagnon ,  compagnard  and  the  like.  Similarly  montaigne 
becomes  montagne  under  the  influence  of  It.  montagna,  Sp. 
montana.  The  old  orthography  has  here  lived  on  in  the  proper 
name  Montaigne ,  and  thereby  caused  the  continuance  of  the 
older  pronunciation.  Note  also  the  proper  name  Cham¬ 
paigne  in  rime  with  peigne,  Cyrano  de  Bergerac ,  I,  scene  2, 
cited  by  Nyrop,  Gram.  Hist.,  I,  p.  196. 

As  far  as  I  know,  this  list  exhausts  the  modern  words 1  in 
-agne,  with  the  exception  of  the  learned  name  Ascagne,  (the 
Eneas,  1.  773,  has  Ascanius)  and  the  geographical  names 
Cerdagne  and  Mortagne. 

Other  words  withstood  this  influence  and  retained  their 
original  and  regular  form.  These  are  in  the  first  place  the 
nouns  araigne,  musaraigne,  and  chdtaigne.  The  reasons  for 
this  isolation  remain  obscure.  It.  aragna  and  castagna,  Sp. 
arana  and  castana  might  have  exercised  similar  influence 
here  as  in  the  preceding  list.  That  it  was  at  work  is  shown 
by  the  rime  compagne  :  aragne  in  La  Fontaine,  Fables,  m,  8. 

The  verbs  finally  have  retained  their  original  pronuncia¬ 
tion.  Plaignons  is  determined  by  the  forms  of  the  paradigm 
without  h,  as  plaindre;  in  others  the  orthography  has  been 

with  aigne.  The  word  occurs  also  in  Joufroi,  cp.  Langlois,  La  Societe  fran- 
gaise  au  XIII e  si&cle,  Paris,  1904,  p.  42,  but  the  text  being  beyond  my  reach 
I  am  not  able  to  verify  the  reference. 

1  Bagne  is  a  comparatively  recent  importation  from  the  Italian,  cp.  Did. 
Gen.  s.  v. 


686 


JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 


changed  under  the  influence  of  the  older  confusion,  as  in 
atteindre,  atteignons ,  or  enfr  eindre,  O.  Fr.  enfraindre,  and 
fraindre.  For  saigner  and  its  derivatives  saignee,  saignant , 
saignement  no  apparent  reason  suggests  itself,  but  baigner 
retains  its  old  vowel  because  of  bain. 

The  words  with  e  -f-  n  on  the  other  hand  have  not  varied 
in  their  pronunciation.  The  causes  which  influenced  the 
change  of  aigne  to  ane  would  have  served  to  strengthen 
the  pronunciation  of  gne  for  eigne.  Hence  we  have  enseigne , 
teigne ,  peigne ,  and  all  the  verbs  in  - eindre ,  as  astreindre , 
Streindre ,  restr eindre ,  teindre ,  feindref  p eindre,  and  eteindre, 
which  in  certain  forms  of  the  paradigm  contain  the  syllable 
gn.  Some  words  in  this  group  show  am  or  aign  through 
orthographic  confusion,  as  Sardaigne  (Sardinia)  daigner 
(dignare),  dedaigner,  and  contraindre-contraignons.  The 
whole  conjugation  of  craindre  is  due  to  analogy  with  the 
aindre  verbs,  and  similar  influence  of  the  eindre  class  has 
determined  the  orthography  and  conjugation  of  g eindre, 
empreindre,  and  epreindre. 


John  E.  Matzke. 


